A. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
This text of A. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (A. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00969-CV
A. T., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 25-1716-DCD, THE HONORABLE JESSICA DEVANEY, JUDGE PRESIDING
NO. 03-26-00071-CV
In re A. T.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A.T. filed cause number 03-25-00969-CV, a pro se appeal of the trial court’s
December 8, 2025 Amended Initial Permanency Hearing Order Before Final Order, challenging
the temporary placement of his two children with their maternal grandparents in the underlying
suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). The Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, noting our lack of jurisdiction over temporary orders rendered in a pending SAPCR. See Tex. Fam. Code § 105.001(e) (“Temporary
orders rendered under this section are not subject to interlocutory appeal.”); Jones v. Jones,
No. 03-25-00062-CV, 2025 WL 1715730, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 20, 2025, pet.
dism’d w.o.j.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction parent’s appeal of temporary orders in
SAPCR). The Clerk of this Court requested that A.T. file a response to the Department’s motion
to dismiss by December 29, 2025. No response was filed.
In general, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which there exists a
final or appealable judgment or order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating general rule that appeal may be
taken only from final judgment that disposes of all pending claims and parties in record unless
statute provides for interlocutory appeal). The trial court’s December 8, 2025 order is not final,
and no statute provides for interlocutory appeal from that order. 1 Because the order that A.T.
challenges is not an appealable interlocutory order, we grant the Department’s motion
and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Jones,
2025 WL 1715730, at *1.
A.T. has requested alternatively that we consider the filings in this proceeding as
a petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334-35 (Tex. 2007) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (courts can grant mandamus relief from temporary orders related to
grandparent access to children).
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We transfer the record of this
appeal—including clerk’s record, reporter’s record, motions, briefs, and other documents filed in
this Court—to a new cause styled In re A.T., cause number 03-26-00071-CV.
1 The order recites that trial on the merits is set for May 1, 2026. 2 In the new cause, the Department is ordered to file a response to the mandamus
petition on or before February 2, 2026. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4 (eff. Jan. 1, 2026). It is ordered
January 23, 2026.
__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: January 23, 2026
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
A. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-t-v-texas-department-of-family-and-protective-services-txctapp3-2026.