In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00433-CV ___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.B., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360-757266-24
Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant B.B. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Final Order Denying Petition for Bill of Review” signed July 22, 2025, which dismissed B.B.’s petition for bill of review attacking a 2021 order signed by the trial court that terminated her parental rights to her adopted daughter J.B.1 B.B.’s notice of appeal was due August 21, 2025. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1; see also In re A.A.S., 367 S.W.3d 905, 910 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (holding that appeal of order denying petition for bill of review challenging termination order was not an accelerated appeal but was a “standard appeal”); In re L.N.M., 182 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.) (similar). But B.B. did not file her notice of appeal until August 22, 2025, making it untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.
On August 28, 2025, we notified the parties by letter of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely. See id. We warned that we may dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless B.B. or any party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response by September 8, 2025, showing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response.
1 We affirmed that termination order in a prior appeal. See In re J.B., No. 02-21- 00239-CV, 2021 WL 6144074, at *27 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 30, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and without a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b), 26.1, 26.3; Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when, as here, an appellant acting in good faith files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the 15-day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule 26.3. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3. But even when an extension motion is implied, the appellant still must reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Jones, 976 S.W.2d at 677; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617.
Because B.B.’s notice of appeal was untimely and because she did not provide a reasonable explanation for needing an extension, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Terreforte v. Gonzalez, No. 02-22-00349-CV, 2022 WL 15076264, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 27, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack Justice
Delivered: October 23, 2025