In the Interest of L.D. and Z.D., Children v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Interest of L.D. and Z.D., Children v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of L.D. and Z.D., 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
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00264-CV ___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF L.D. AND Z.D., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 393rd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-5748-393
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION
Alleged father, B.D., attempts to appeal from the trial court’s Order Extending
Emergency Orders Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 262.103 (Order). This Order—
which was agreed to in writing by B.D., Mother, and the Department of Family and
Protective Services—extended the temporary emergency orders previously entered by
the trial court in which it had named the Department as temporary managing
conservator of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201(e) (allowing the trial
court to extend both the deadline for an adversary hearing and the temporary
emergency orders until the rescheduled hearing).
We notified B.D. and his attorney of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction
over this appeal because the Order did not appear to be a final judgment or
appealable interlocutory order and explained that we could dismiss the appeal unless
we received a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We received no
response.
We may consider appeals only from final judgments or from interlocutory
orders made immediately appealable by the Texas Legislature. See Bonsmara Nat. Beef
Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. 2020). Temporary
orders entered in a SAPCR are not appealable, interlocutory orders. Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. § 105.001(e); Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (orig.
proceeding); In re K.S., No. 02-20-00409-CV, 2021 WL 126596, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth Jan. 14, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
2 Thus, we do not have jurisdiction over B.D.’s attempted appeal, and we dismiss
it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Interest of L.D., No. 02-21-00050-CV, 2021 WL
1421425, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 15, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.
op.).
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker Justice
Delivered: September 28, 2023
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 L.D. and Z.D., Children v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ld-and-zd-children-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.