
    In the Interest of Z.W.H., D.R.H., P.J.H., P.W.H., and G.M.H., Children.
    No. 10-03-00304-CV.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.
    June 16, 2004.
    John B. Worley, Asst. Atty. General Rhonda A. Pressley, Asst. Atty. General-Child Support Division, Austin, for appellant.
    Nita C. Fanning, Waco, for appellee.
   TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,

dissenting from denial of motion for rehearing.

In a separate order issued in this cause on this same date, we are granting the relief requested in the motion for rehearing by withdrawing our earlier judgment and correcting an alleged error in our original assessment of costs. I would not grant the relief requested in the motion for rehearing without first requesting a response. Tex.R.App. P. 49.2.

The Attorney General’s motion for rehearing asks us to reconsider our judgment assessing costs against the State when acting under Title IV-D. I have long been opposed to any effort to re-write, modify, or respond to arguments made in a motion for rehearing without requesting a response. Campbell v. State, 128 S.W.3d 662, 680 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, order) (Gray, C.J., dissenting); see also T.C. & C. Real Estate Holding, Inc. v. Sherrod, No. 10-00-002-CV (Tex.App.-Waco Nov. 14, 2001, order) (Gray, J., dissenting) (not designated for publication); In re J.F.C., 57 S.W.3d 66, 76 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001) (Gray, J., dissenting), rev’d, 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex.2002).

We should first request a response; and after giving the appellee a chance to respond, only then should we grant the relief requested. Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent from the denial of the motion for rehearing.  