in the Interest of L.G.
This text of in the Interest of L.G. (in the Interest of L.G.) 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 Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-15-00115-CV ____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF L.G.
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-11-12087 CV ________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
E.W., the father of L.G., a minor child, filed a notice of appeal from the trial
court’s order of March 31, 2015, which approved L.G.’s removal from his
placement in Arizona under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children
and approved L.G.’s placement by the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services in Texas. See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 162.102 (West 2014) (the
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, or “ICPC”). At all times relevant
to this appeal, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has been
the child’s permanent managing conservator. In general, incidental orders signed
1 after the Department has been appointed as a child’s permanent managing
conservator are not appealable as final orders. See In re H.M.C., No. 10-14-00059-
CV, 2014 WL 2463079, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem.
op.); In re A.J., No. 02-11-00442-CV, 2012 WL 171262, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Jan. 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (permanency hearing orders). We notified
the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless our jurisdiction over the
appeal could be established. After reviewing the parties’ responses, the clerk’s
record, and the reporter’s record of the hearing on the Department’s motion, we
conclude that the trial court’s March 31, 2015 order is not a final order from which
an appeal is authorized. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice
Submitted on May 20, 2015 Opinion Delivered May 21, 2015
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
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.G., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-lg-texapp-2015.