in the Interest of B.J.M., a Minor Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of B.J.M., a Minor Child

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 23, 2018·No. 06-17-00111-CV·Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00111-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.M., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-622

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brandi Nicole Mizzles appeals from the trial court’s temporary orders entered on

November 2, 2017, in this suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

Our jurisdiction, as an appellate court, is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX.

CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (West Supp. 2017). Stated differently, in the absence of a specific grant of jurisdiction by the Texas Constitution or the Texas Legislature, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to act. The question, then, is whether either the Texas Constitution or the Texas Legislature has granted this Court jurisdiction to hear the type of interlocutory appeal that Mizzles has noticed. The trial court’s November 2 temporary orders do not constitute a final order, and do not appear to fall within any of the categories of appealable interlocutory orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(1)–(12) (West Supp. 2017); Hernandez v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 392 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.). Consequently, it appears that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Pina v. Shaw, No. 01-03-00088-CV, 2004 WL 306096, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 19, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing similar appeal for want of jurisdiction, citing Section 105.001(e) of the Texas Family Code).

By letter of December 18, 2017, we informed Mizzles of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded her the opportunity to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of the appeal. Mizzles did not file a response to our letter.

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 22, 2018 Date Decided: January 23, 2018

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00111-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.M., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-622

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brandi Nicole Mizzles appeals from the trial court’s temporary orders entered on

November 2, 2017, in this suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

Our jurisdiction, as an appellate court, is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX.

CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (West Supp. 2017). Stated differently, in the absence of a specific grant of jurisdiction by the Texas Constitution or the Texas Legislature, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to act. The question, then, is whether either the Texas Constitution or the Texas Legislature has granted this Court jurisdiction to hear the type of interlocutory appeal that Mizzles has noticed. The trial court’s November 2 temporary orders do not constitute a final order, and do not appear to fall within any of the categories of appealable interlocutory orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(1)–(12) (West Supp. 2017); Hernandez v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 392 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.). Consequently, it appears that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Pina v. Shaw, No. 01-03-00088-CV, 2004 WL 306096, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 19, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing similar appeal for want of jurisdiction, citing Section 105.001(e) of the Texas Family Code).

By letter of December 18, 2017, we informed Mizzles of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded her the opportunity to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of the appeal. Mizzles did not file a response to our letter.

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 22, 2018 Date Decided: January 23, 2018

in the Interest of B.J.M., a Minor Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

in the Interest of B.J.M., a Minor Child (in the Interest of B.J.M., a Minor Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related