in the Interest of J.S.A-S., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of J.S.A-S., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 14, 2013·No. 14-13-00946-CV·Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 14, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00946-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.A.-S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 309th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008-39339

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from an order signed July 29, 2013, terminating the parental rights of appellant, A.A., to the child referenced above. On August 2, 2013, the trial court signed an order granting a new trial on the issue of managing conservatorship of the child. The order reinstated the temporary order naming the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as temporary managing conservator of the child. Accordingly, the termination order is not final. See M.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 300 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2008, pet. denied) (dismissing interlocutory appeal after finding a termination order is not a “final order” when it appoints the Department as the child’s temporary managing conservator); see also In re E.A.F., No. 14-13-00618- CV, 2013 WL 4945751 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 12, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing termination appeal where the order did not dispose of all parties and issues); In re F.M.-T., No. 02-12-00522-CV, 2013 WL 1337789 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction when the trial court’s order did not terminate the rights of the presumed father of one of the children).

On October 24, 2013, this court notified the parties that this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response demonstrating this court’s jurisdiction on or before November 4, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response was filed.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal after the trial court signs a final judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Brown.

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

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 14, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00946-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.A.-S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 309th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008-39339

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from an order signed July 29, 2013, terminating the parental rights of appellant, A.A., to the child referenced above. On August 2, 2013, the trial court signed an order granting a new trial on the issue of managing conservatorship of the child. The order reinstated the temporary order naming the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as temporary managing conservator of the child. Accordingly, the termination order is not final. See M.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 300 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2008, pet. denied) (dismissing interlocutory appeal after finding a termination order is not a “final order” when it appoints the Department as the child’s temporary managing conservator); see also In re E.A.F., No. 14-13-00618- CV, 2013 WL 4945751 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 12, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing termination appeal where the order did not dispose of all parties and issues); In re F.M.-T., No. 02-12-00522-CV, 2013 WL 1337789 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction when the trial court’s order did not terminate the rights of the presumed father of one of the children).

On October 24, 2013, this court notified the parties that this appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response demonstrating this court’s jurisdiction on or before November 4, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response was filed.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal after the trial court signs a final judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Brown.

in the Interest of J.S.A-S., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

in the Interest of J.S.A-S., Children (in the Interest of J.S.A-S., Children) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related