in the Interest of A.R. and L.R., Children
This text of in the Interest of A.R. and L.R., Children (in the Interest of A.R. and L.R., Children) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-19-00031-CV ___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.R. AND L.R., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-522600-12
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant K.W. attempts to appeal from an interlocutory order denying her
motion to dismiss for lack of standing in the underlying suit to modify the parent-
child relationship.
On February 5, 2019, we notified K.W. of our concern regarding jurisdiction
because the order did not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory
order. We provided K.W. or any party desiring to continue the appeal twenty days to
respond and provide grounds for continuing the appeal, and we cautioned that the
failure to respond could result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. K.W. did not file a response.
“Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders or judgments
unless a statute permits an interlocutory appeal.” In re Roxsane R., 249 S.W.3d 764,
774–75 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding). An order denying a motion
to dismiss for lack of standing in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship is not a
final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See In re McDaniel, 408 S.W.3d 389,
396 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (“[A]n order denying a
motion to dismiss for lack of standing in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship
is not appealable, and mandamus relief is an appropriate remedy.”); Roxsane R., 249
S.W.3d at 774 (same); see also In re Clay, No. 02-18-00404-CV, 2019 WL 545722, at *3
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 12, 2019, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.)
2 (same); In re Schick, No. 04-18-00839-CV, 2018 WL 6624380, at *2 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (same).
Accordingly, we dismiss K.W.’s attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
/s/ Dabney Bassel Dabney Bassel Justice
Delivered: April 11, 2019
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Interest of A.R. and L.R., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ar-and-lr-children-texapp-2019.