Background
In May 2025, B.F.P., a juvenile, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct and placed on probation following a disposition hearing. In January 2026, the trial court modified that disposition, placing B.F.P. in the custody of her paternal grandfather while requiring her to continue following probation rules. The trial court found the placement was in B.F.P.’s best interest and admonished the parties of their right to appeal.
Dustin Doyle Purdy and Michelle Kathline Gibson, who appear to be B.F.P.’s parents or guardians, filed a pro se appeal challenging the order. They alleged absence of lawful notice, lack of statutory service, and due process violations. B.F.P. was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Under Texas Family Code § 56.01(c)(1)(C), an appeal from an order modifying a juvenile disposition may be taken only “by or on behalf of a child.” The child has the right to appeal and the right to counsel for that appeal.
The court held that B.F.P.’s counsel properly informed the court that B.F.P. did not wish to appeal the trial court’s order. Absent a notice of appeal filed by or on behalf of the child expressing a desire to appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The appellants’ rights to appeal are derivative of B.F.P.’s rights—they cannot appeal independently when the child does not wish to do so. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and all pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Parents and guardians lack independent standing to appeal juvenile disposition orders; their appeal rights are derivative of the child’s right to appeal.
- When a child represented by counsel expresses no desire to appeal, parents cannot override that position by filing their own notice of appeal.
- Jurisdiction over appeals in juvenile cases is strictly limited to circumstances where the child (or someone acting on the child’s behalf with the child’s consent) pursues the appeal.
- The trial court’s admonishment that the child has the right to appeal does not create an independent right for parents to appeal when the child declines to do so.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle in juvenile law: the child’s interests and wishes control in juvenile disposition appeals, not the parents’ interests. Even when parents believe a disposition order is unjust or violates due process, they cannot override a child’s decision not to appeal. This protects the autonomy of represented juveniles and prevents parents from pursuing appeals contrary to the child’s expressed desires.
The ruling clarifies that appellate jurisdiction in juvenile cases is strictly construed. Parents dissatisfied with disposition orders must persuade the child to pursue an appeal; they cannot use appellate review as a backdoor mechanism to challenge orders their child is willing to accept. The decision also illustrates potential conflicts of interest between children and parents in juvenile proceedings, highlighting why separate counsel for the child is crucial.