![](3D"http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/070954f_mtd/seal.gif=)
Appellant,=20
Victor Woodard, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor =
of=20
appellees, Trristaan Henry and the Texas Attorney General. In =
three=20
issues, Woodard challenges the trial court's jurisdiction, refusal =
to=20
grant a de novo hearing, and the factual sufficiency of the =
evidence to=20
support several rulings concerning child support and possession of =
his=20
child. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction over this =
case,=20
and that the trial court erred by denying Woodard's request for a =
de novo=20
hearing. We reverse and remand, without addressing the sufficiency =
of the=20
evidence. In 2006,=20
the Texas Attorney General petitioned to establish the =
parent-child=20
relationship between Woodard and K.J.W., a young boy. According to =
the=20
clerk's docket sheet, on May 1, 2007, "NCP [Woodard] appeared, CP =
[Henry]=20
made Default. Hearing held, Default J granted & Orders =
Submitted."=20
However, the parties disputed whether a default judgment occurred. =
The=20
clerk's record does not contain a signed default judgment. =
At a=20
hearing before the associate judge on August 14, 2007, the =
associate judge=20
established Woodard's paternity, established the parent-child=20
relationship, appointed Henry managing conservator, appointed =
Woodard=20
possessory conservator, set visitation, ordered current child =
support, and=20
ordered cash medical support. The associate judge signed the order =
with=20
these determinations on August 17, 2007. On August=20
15, 2007, the day after the hearing, Woodard filed a notice of =
appeal from=20
the associate judge's ruling requesting that the district court =
review the=20
associate judge's rulings. Woodard's notice of appeal provided, in =
part, In the=20
Associate Judge's proposed Order Establishing the Parent-Child=20
Relationship, Respondent was ordered to pay current child support =
in the=20
amount of $342.00, in excess of guidelines. Further, the current =
child=20
support order disregards child support he currently pays for two =
other=20
children who are not before the Court. The Court=20
ordered Respondent to pay [Trristaan] Henry cash medical support =
of=20
$224.00 without evidence of insurance costs from Ms. Henry and =
without=20
allowing Respondent to directly provide health insurance for the =
child.=20
The Court improperly ordered medical support arrears of=20
$165.79. The Court=20
did not appointed [sic] Respondent as Possessory Conservator =
instead of=20
Joint Managing Conservator of the Child. The Court did not order a =
geographic restriction to the primary residence of the child.=20
The Court=20
ordered limited possession and access to the child by Respondent =
which is=20
not pursuant to the Standard Possession Order of the Family Code =
and not=20
in the best interest of the child. The Court=20
ordered the child support provisions and the cash medical support=20
provisions an obligation of the estate of Victor Woodard which =
contradicts=20
the code. Victor=20
Woodard objects to each finding and/or conclusions of the =
Associate Judge=20
indicated above. (Emphasis=20
added). Woodard requested the court set the matter on the docket =
for a=20
hearing. Henry=20
responded with a "motion to deny appeal" acknowledging that =
Woodard "filed=20
what appears to be a timely notice of appeal to the referring =
court."=20
However, Henry asserted Woodard's notice of appeal failed to =
comply with=20
the Family Code because it failed to specify the findings and =
conclusions=20
of the associate judge to which the party objects. On September =
25, 2007,=20
the district court signed an order denying the appeal to the =
district=20
court. Woodard then appealed to the court of appeals. A =
trial=20
court "has plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, =
modify,=20
correct, or reform the judgment within thirty days after the =
judgment is=20
signed." Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d); see L.M. Healthcare, Inc. v. =
Childs, 929 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) ("A =
party must=20
file a motion for new trial no later than the thirtieth day after =
the=20
judgment was signed."); Coinmach, Inc. v. Aspenwood Apt. =
Corp.,=20
98 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). =
Here,=20
although the docket entry mentions a default judgment, the record =
does not=20
contain a signed default judgment. See Childs, =
929=20
S.W.2d at 443. Because there was never a signed default judgment, =
the=20
court had continuing jurisdiction. See id. Thus, the =
subsequent=20
orders are not void. See id. Accordingly, we overrule =
Woodard's=20
second issue. Section=20
201.015 of the Texas Family Code covers de novo hearings before a=20
referring court. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. =A7 201.015 (Vernon 2008). =
For suits=20
affecting the parent-child relationship filed before September 1, =
2007,=20
the statute provided, (a) A party=20
may appeal an associate judge's report by filing notice of appeal =
not=20
later than the third day after the date the party receives notice =
of the=20
substance of the associate judge's report as provided by Section =
201.011.=20
(b) An=20
appeal to the referring court must be in writing specifying the =
findings=20
and conclusions of the associate judge to which the party objects. =
The=20
appeal is limited to the specified findings and =
conclusions. Act of=20
April 6, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 20, =A7 1, sec. =
201.015(a),(b), 1995=20
Tex. Gen. Laws 241 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Fam. =
Code Ann.=20
=A7 201.015(a),(b) (Vernon 2008)). Here, the=20
version of section 201.015 for suits affecting the parent-child=20
relationship filed before September 1, 2007 applies, because this =
suit=20
affecting the parent-child relationship was filed February 8, =
2006.=20
See Act of May 23, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1235, =A7 =
14, 2007=20
Tex. Gen. Laws 4154. Woodard filed his notice of appeal within the =
time=20
constraints of section 201.015(a). Henry contends that Woodard's =
notice of=20
appeal to the trial court was late "because appellant listed his=20
objections to the orders of the Associate Judge as opposed to the =
findings=20
and conclusions." Although Woodard uses the word "objects" in his =
notice=20
of appeal when addressing the associate judge's findings and =
conclusions,=20
he identifies the findings and conclusions clearly enough to =
entitle him=20
to a hearing de novo on those issues. Chacon v. Chacon, =
222=20
S.W.3d 909, 913 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.) We sustain=20
Woodard's first issue, reverse the denial of his appeal, and =
remand the=20
case to the referring trial court to hold a hearing de novo.=20
Elsa=20
Alcala Panel=20
consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Hanks.=20
1. As in the instant matter, the =
pre-September 1, 2007=20
version of section 201.015(b) was at issue in Chacon. =
Chacon=20
v. Chacon, 222 S.W.3d 909, 912 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007, no =
pet.).=20