In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 21, 2025·No. 10-25-00412-CV·Published

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

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

In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related