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

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

2