in the Interest of R. G. W. and C. A. W., Minor Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 25, 2002
• Docket: 12-02-00186-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM HEADING

NO. 12-02-00186-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 294TH

IN THE INTEREST OF R.G.W. AND

C.A.W.,

§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

MINOR CHILDREN

§ VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION ⁽¹⁾

Appellant's minor children reside with their father, Appellant's former husband, in the State of Washington. The 294th Judicial District Court of Van Zandt County, Texas had continuing jurisdiction of matters relating to the children. In a telephonic hearing on August 16, 2000, the trial court declined jurisdiction in favor of the State of Washington. This is an attempted appeal from the trial court's action.

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on May 24, 2002. Attached to the notice was a photocopy of a docket sheet entry dated August 16, 2000 memorializing the trial court's decline of jurisdiction. The clerk's record was filed on June 21, 2002 and included a photocopy of the same docket sheet entry. However, the clerk's record did not include a written order signed by the trial court.

On August 28, 2000, pursuant to Rule 37.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this court notified Appellant that the record received in this appeal does not contain an appealable order and therefore does not show the jurisdiction of this court. Appellant was also informed that unless the record was supplemented on or before September 9, 2002 to show jurisdiction, the appeal would be dismissed. On September 9, 2000, Appellant filed a "Motion to Show Jurisdiction of This Court" in which she listed several written orders signed by the trial court pertaining to matters previously litigated in connection with her children. However, we did not receive a supplemental clerk's record containing the order Appellant seeks to appeal; i.e., the trial court's decline of jurisdiction. Furthermore, Appellant's motion does not contain any information that indicates a written order was ever signed by the trial court.

This court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments and such interlocutory orders as the legislature has deemed appealable. City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex. 1993); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2000). ⁽²⁾ A docket sheet entry is not a substitute for a signed written order and therefore cannot constitute an appealable order. E.g., Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conference Center, Inc. v. Zardenetta, 776 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. 1989); Intercity Management Corp. v. Chambers, 820 S.W.2d 811, 812 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, Appellant's motion to show jurisdiction is overruled, and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered September 25, 2002.

Panel consisted of Gohmert, Jr., C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

2.

Certain additional appealable interlocutory orders are set forth in the Texas Family Code and Texas Probate Code, but they likewise are not applicable to the instant order.