in the Interest of S.R.G., J.A.G., and C.J.G., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of S.R.G., J.A.G., and C.J.G., Children

DecidedJanuary 29, 2019

Docket14-18-01069-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of S.R.G., J.A.G., and C.J.G., Children (in the Interest of S.R.G., J.A.G., and C.J.G., Children) 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.R.G., J.A.G., and C.J.G., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January ,29 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-01069-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.R.G., J.A.G., AND C.J.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 313th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-05307J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from the “Denial of a Motion to Stay the Adoption of Children Pending Filing of a Petition Filed November 8, 2016.” Appellant’s parental rights were terminated in a decree signed October 20, 2016. This court affirmed the termination of appellant’s parental rights. See In re S.R.G., No. 14-16- 00900-CV, 2017 WL 1497350, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In this appeal appellant attempts to appeal the denial of a motion to stay the adoption of the children. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders are not appealable unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). In this case appellant timely appealed the termination decree, which was a final judgment. No statutory exception permits the appeal of a denial of a motion to stay adoption filed two years after termination of parental rights.

On December 27, 2018, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before January 8, 2019, appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.

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

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January ,29 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-01069-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.R.G., J.A.G., AND C.J.G., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 313th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-05307J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from the “Denial of a Motion to Stay the Adoption of Children Pending Filing of a Petition Filed November 8, 2016.” Appellant’s parental rights were terminated in a decree signed October 20, 2016. This court affirmed the termination of appellant’s parental rights. See In re S.R.G., No. 14-16- 00900-CV, 2017 WL 1497350, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In this appeal appellant attempts to appeal the denial of a motion to stay the adoption of the children. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders are not appealable unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). In this case appellant timely appealed the termination decree, which was a final judgment. No statutory exception permits the appeal of a denial of a motion to stay adoption filed two years after termination of parental rights.

On December 27, 2018, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before January 8, 2019, appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of S.R.G., J.A.G., and C.J.G., Children, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-srg-jag-and-cjg-children-texapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack