Harold D. White v. Melissa White

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 20, 2011
• Docket: 01-10-01124-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 20, 2011.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-01124-CV

———————————

Harold Dean White, Appellant

V.

Melissa H. White, Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2010-63189

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Harold Dean White appeals the trial court’s November 15, 2010 temporary protective order prohibiting him from having contact with his former wife, his stepchildren, or his sons until November 15, 2012.  With certain exceptions made explicit by statute, the courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review only final judgments.  Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

The Texas Family Code specifically precludes the interlocutory appeal of temporary orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (West 2008); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.507 (West 2006) (specifically precluding interlocutory appeal of temporary orders, except those appointing receiver); Mason v. Mason, 256 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Marley v. Marley, No. 01-05-00992-CV, 2006 WL 3094325, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op) (holding section 51.014(4) of Civil Practice and Remedies Code permitting appeals from temporary injunctions did not control over statutory prohibition of interlocutory appeals from temporary orders in Family Code).  As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.[1] 

We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  All pending motions are denied as moot.

                                      PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

---

[1]           Harold challenges the temporary protective order as void, contending that, because a North Carolina court made the initial custody determination in a consent order arising out of the Whites’ divorce proceeding, the Texas trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the temporary protective order.  Because we lack jurisdiction, we cannot consider that collateral attack in the context of this interlocutory appeal.