In the Interest of V.G., R.T., and E.T., Children v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-25-00505-CV

___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF V.G., R.T., AND E.T., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 233-667740-19

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant A.A. (Mother), proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s “Initial Permanency Hearing Order Before Final Order” (the Order).

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments or interlocutory orders authorized by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 200 (Tex. 2001). 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 id. We informed Mother that unless she or any other 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. Although Mother filed a response, it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss Mother’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195, 200; see also In re A.J., No. 02-11- 00442-CV, 2012 WL 171262, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 19, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“[B]ecause the permanency hearing order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.” (footnote omitted)).

/a/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Delivered: October 9, 2025