C. S. and B. S. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 201st District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00610-CV C. S. and B. S., Appellants v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST DISTRICT NO. D-1-FM-14-005144 HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants filed a notice of appeal in September 2014. They state that they are appealing interlocutory from “all rulings, issued orders, and issued opinions by the Travis County Judicial District Court, in Appellants Appeal of Judgment on September 22nd, 2014.” On that date, the trial court signed an order extending show cause orders. The underlying suit was filed on September 11, 2014, by appellee the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services against appellants concerning the parent-child relationship between appellants and their children. Interlocutory orders are appealable only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). Further, the Family Code specifically precludes the interlocutory appeal of temporary orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. Tex. Fam. Code § 105.001(e). On October 22, 2014, the Clerk of this Court requested a response from appellants by November 3, 2014. The Clerk advised appellants that they must inform this Court of the basis on which jurisdiction exists or that this Court would dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellants have not filed a response. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Id.; see also Tex. Fam. Code § 105.001(e). __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: November 7, 2014 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.