In the Interest of J.H. and B.H. Children--Appeal from 97th District Court of Montague County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-09-264-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.H. AND B.H., CHILDREN -----------FROM THE 97TH DISTRICT COURT OF MONTAGUE COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Appellant is attempting to appeal from an Amended Final Order Confirming Support Arrearage and Modifying Support Obligation (UIFSA) signed by the associate judge of the 97th District Court. But this is not a final, appealable order. An associate judge may render only certain enumerated types of final orders: (1) written orders agreed to in form and substance by all parties, (2) default orders, (3) orders in cases in which a party files an unrevoked waiver made in accordance with Rule 119, Texas Rules of Civil 1 ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Procedure, that waives notice to the party of the final hearing or waives the party s appearance at the final hearing, and (4) final orders that include a waiver of the right of appeal pursuant to section 201.015(g) of the family code. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.007(a)(14) (A), (B), (D), (16) (Vernon 2008), § 201.015(g) (Vernon Supp. 2009); Tex. R. Civ. P. 119; see In re Lausch, 177 S.W.3d 144, 151 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding). The order in this case does not fall within any of the enumerated orders that an associate judge may render. To be appealable, all other orders must be adopted by the presiding judge of the trial court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.016(b) (Vernon 2008); In re M.K.R., 216 S.W.3d 58, 64 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); Robles v. Robles, 965 S.W.2d 605, 609 n.4 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). Thus, because this order has not yet been adopted by the presiding judge, it is not final or appealable under the family code. In addition, it is not an appealable interlocutory order under the civil practice and remedies code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008). Thus, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ. DELIVERED: November 12, 2009 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
