In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas) 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
Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00412-CV
In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Ellis County, Texas Judge James S. Chapman, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 118644CCL
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Mother of C.P.C. and P.G.C., filed an accelerated appeal of a
temporary order that granted the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services temporary managing conservatorship of C.P.C. and P.G.C. By letter
from the Clerk of this Court dated November 10, 2025, Appellant was notified
that this Court would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was filed.
In response, Appellant filed a motion for this Court to construe the notice
of accelerated appeal as either a petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ of
habeas corpus. Appellant’s motion is denied. This Court has already denied a
petition for a writ of mandamus in a separate opinion and judgment in Cause
No. 10-25-00386-CV on October 31, 2025, that asserted the same claims. It is well established that temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-
child relationship cannot be challenged on appeal. See TEX. FAM. CODE §
105.001(e); see, e.g., In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 248-49 & n.8 (Tex. 2013)
(citing Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). A
trial court's decision to allow the department to maintain custody of a child
following an adversary hearing is reviewable, if at all, through a petition for
writ of mandamus, and Appellant has previously sought and been denied that
relief in this Court. In re Chenette, No. 10-25-00386-CV, 2025 2025 WL
3055127, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8470 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 31, 2025, no pet.
h.) (mem. op.); see also In re J.D.S., 494 S.W.3d 387, 389 (Tex. App.—Waco
2015, no pet.) (citing In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d
613, 614 (Tex. 2008)). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Appellant’s pending motions are dismissed as moot.
LEE HARRIS Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 21, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed; Motions denied CV06
In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children Page 2
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 C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-cpc-and-pgc-children-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.