In the Interest of A.J.U., M.A.U. and A.U., Children v. << (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant attempts to appeal from the trial court's judgment signed April 8, 2016. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and because appellant failed to comply with this Court's order requiring a written explanation for the late notice of appeal.

Because this is an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, the appeal from this order is accelerated. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(a) (West 2014); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 925 (Tex. 2005). The notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal must be filed within 20 days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. We may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the 15-day extension period provided by Rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tex. 1997).

The judgment was signed on April 8, 2016. Because this is an accelerated appeal, appellant's notice of appeal was due on April 28, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until May 3, 2016. Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal, though the notice was filed within the Verburgt period. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617–18. Thus, a motion for extension is implied, but appellant must reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998) (holding that appellant should be able to prosecute appeal despite notice of appeal filed within the Verburgt period if appellant can reasonably explain need for extension).

On May 12, 2016, we notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by May 23, 2016, appellant filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and because appellant failed to comply with a court order requiring a response within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c); In the Interest of H.H., No. 07–15–00308–CV, 2015 WL 5559922, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 18, 2015, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to respond to court order to reasonably explain untimely filing of notice of appeal). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM