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

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