In the Interest of T.E., a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 2, 2024
• Docket: 02-24-00145-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00145-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.E., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-737023-23

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

Appellant C.R. (Mother) seeks to appeal the trial court’s “Initial Permanency

Hearing Order Before Final Order” (the Order).

On April 9, 2024, we notified Mother 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); In re S.E.M., No. 12-05-

00008-CV, 2005 WL 612839, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 16, 2005, no pet.) (per

curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order entered after an initial permanency

hearing for want of jurisdiction because order was not a final judgment or an

appealable interlocutory order).

We informed Mother 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 Mother 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;

S.E.M., 2005 WL 612839, at *1.

1 Mother’s response addresses the merits of her challenges to the Order without addressing the jurisdictional issue.

2 /s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack Justice

Delivered: May 2, 2024