In the Interest of R.H., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00533-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00533-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 158th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 24-11021-158

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant C.M.B. attempts to appeal the trial court’s “Order Adjudicating

Parentage and Dissolution of Temporary Orders” (the Order).

On December 6, 2024, we notified Appellant 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. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195,

200 (Tex. 2001) (holding that, generally, appeals may be taken only from final

judgments or interlocutory orders authorized by statute). We informed Appellant that

unless she or any party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal,

we could dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. While

Appellant has filed a response, it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. 1

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195, 200.

1 Indeed, Appellant candidly acknowledges in her response that she “is of the opinion that jurisdiction is not proper with this court,” noting that the Order is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. Appellant also asks us to clarify “whether a petition for writ of mandamus would be more appropriate” to challenge the Order. We decline Appellant’s invitation to clarify the matter, as we are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions. See Tex Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993) (noting that “[t]he distinctive feature of an advisory opinion is that it decides an abstract question of law without binding the parties” and that “Texas courts . . . have no jurisdiction to render such opinions”); In re A.R., No. 02-21-00449-CV, 2022 WL 17172491, at *7 n.8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“We decline Mother’s invitation to clarify the Sealing Order, as we are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions.”).

2 /s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack Justice

Delivered: January 23, 2025