IN THE INTEREST OF CHILD v. << (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kevin Earl Scott has filed a pro se notice of appeal in which he attempts to appeal from the trial court's October 18, 2016 decision to deny Scott's request for court-appointed counsel. We notified Scott by letter dated October 28, 2016, that it did not appear to this court that a final, appealable order had been entered by the trial court, and we requested that Scott file a response showing grounds to continue this appeal. Scott filed a response; however, he has not shown grounds upon which this appeal may continue.

Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial court's letter ruling relates only to the appointment of counsel and is not a final, appealable order because it does not dispose of all parties and all claims. Additionally, the letter ruling does not appear on its face to be final. See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. Because no final, appealable order has been entered in this cause, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM