In the Interest of S.P.,J.B.P., and L.R.P., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In the Interest of S.P.,J.B.P., and L.R.P., Children v. the State of Texas

DecidedAugust 1, 2024

Docket11-24-00193-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In the Interest of S.P.,J.B.P., and L.R.P., Children v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of S.P.,J.B.P., and L.R.P., 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.

Bluebook

In the Interest of S.P.,J.B.P., and L.R.P., Children v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed August 1, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-24-00193-CV ___________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.P., J.B.P., AND L.R.P., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C49295

MEMORANDUM OPINION In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, the father of the children has filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s temporary orders. We dismiss the appeal. When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court wrote Appellant and informed him that it did not appear that the order from which he was attempting to appeal was a final, appealable order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal, and we informed Appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. We also requested that Appellee respond regarding Appellant’s notice of appeal from the trial court’s temporary orders. Appellant has responded but has not shown grounds to continue this appeal or that will allow us to proceed. Appellee has responded and agrees that the order that Appellant attempts to appeal is an interlocutory order over which we do not have jurisdiction. In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, temporary orders before the final order are not considered final, appealable orders and are “not subject to interlocutory appeal.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(e) (West Supp. 2023); In re Office of Att’y General, 257 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from interlocutory temporary orders. See FAM. 105.001(e); Saavedra v. Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533, 536 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); Perkins v. Perkins, No. 03-21-00135-CV, 2021 WL 2816008, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 7, 2021, pet. denied) (the appellant may not circumvent the legislature’s clear intention to prohibit an interlocutory appeal of temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship by casting it as a temporary injunction under Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code); see also Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991); In re Herring, 221 S.W.3d 729, 730 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding) (stating that a petition for writ of mandamus is an appropriate means to challenge a temporary order issued in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship). Because Appellant attempts to appeal an interlocutory temporary order, we must dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Perkins, 2021 WL 2816008, at *1–2. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

August 1, 2024 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 2

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

Opinion filed August 1, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-24-00193-CV ___________

IN THE INTEREST OF S.P., J.B.P., AND L.R.P., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C49295

MEMORANDUM OPINION In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, the father of the children has filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s temporary orders. We dismiss the appeal. When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court wrote Appellant and informed him that it did not appear that the order from which he was attempting to appeal was a final, appealable order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal, and we informed Appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. We also requested that Appellee respond regarding Appellant’s notice of appeal from the trial court’s temporary orders. Appellant has responded but has not shown grounds to continue this appeal or that will allow us to proceed. Appellee has responded and agrees that the order that Appellant attempts to appeal is an interlocutory order over which we do not have jurisdiction. In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, temporary orders before the final order are not considered final, appealable orders and are “not subject to interlocutory appeal.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(e) (West Supp. 2023); In re Office of Att’y General, 257 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from interlocutory temporary orders. See FAM. 105.001(e); Saavedra v. Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533, 536 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); Perkins v. Perkins, No. 03-21-00135-CV, 2021 WL 2816008, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 7, 2021, pet. denied) (the appellant may not circumvent the legislature’s clear intention to prohibit an interlocutory appeal of temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship by casting it as a temporary injunction under Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code); see also Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991); In re Herring, 221 S.W.3d 729, 730 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding) (stating that a petition for writ of mandamus is an appropriate means to challenge a temporary order issued in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship). Because Appellant attempts to appeal an interlocutory temporary order, we must dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Perkins, 2021 WL 2816008, at *1–2. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

August 1, 2024 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest of S.P.,J.B.P., and L.R.P., Children v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-spjbp-and-lrp-children-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack