IN THE INTEREST OF CHILD v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J., A CHILD

NO. 02–11–00442–CV

Decided: January 23, 2012

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant J.J. appeals from the trial court's permanency hearing order signed September 29, 2011 in the underlying case filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.2  On November 8, 2011, we notified the parties that we were concerned that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the permanency hearing order appears to be neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order.   We indicated that this case could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if the parties did not show grounds for continuing the appeal by November 18, 2011.   As of this date, we have received no response.

Accordingly, because the permanency hearing order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order,3 we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction,4 and we dismiss Appellant's request for appointed counsel for this appeal as moot.

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  January 19, 2012

FOOTNOTES

FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4..  FN1. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

FN2. Appellant has also filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's final judgment.   That appeal remains pending.   See In re A.J., No. 02–11–00517–CV (Tex.App.—Fort Worth filed Dec. 22, 2011)..  FN2. Appellant has also filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's final judgment.   That appeal remains pending.   See In re A.J., No. 02–11–00517–CV (Tex.App.—Fort Worth filed Dec. 22, 2011).

FN3. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §  51.014(a) (West Supp.2011) (listing appealable interlocutory orders);  Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001) (providing general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment);  In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 522, 524, 527 (Tex. App—Waco 2009, no pet.) (holding order in suit affecting parent-child relationship interlocutory and unappealable when intervention was pending)..  FN3. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §  51.014(a) (West Supp.2011) (listing appealable interlocutory orders);  Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001) (providing general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment);  In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 522, 524, 527 (Tex. App—Waco 2009, no pet.) (holding order in suit affecting parent-child relationship interlocutory and unappealable when intervention was pending).

FN4. See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f)..  FN4. See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Copied to clipboard