In the interest of A.R., C.R., M.R., R.R., and J.R., children Appeal from 91st District Court of Eastland County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed January 6, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-16-00340-CV __________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., C.R., M.R., R.R., AND J.R., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 91st District Court Eastland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV-11-142403 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in this cause on November 30, 2016. Upon docketing the case, we notified Appellant that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction in this matter, and we requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. In response, Appellant filed in this court a petition for writ of mandamus (Cause No. 11-16-00354-CV). The documents on file in this court reflect that, in February 2016, the trial court denied various requests and motions filed by Appellant, including discovery requests and a motion for summary judgment; however, the trial court has not acted on Appellant’s motion to modify the parent-child relationship.1 Because the trial court’s denials of Appellant’s various requests for relief are interlocutory matters that do not constitute final or appealable orders and because the trial court has not ruled on the motion to modify, a final appealable order has not been entered. 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 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM January 6, 2017 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 1 In response to the petition for writ of mandamus in Cause No. 11-16-00354-CV, the trial court acknowledged that it had denied various requests for relief filed by Appellant. The trial court further indicated in its response that “none of the other parties whose rights and duties would be affected by [Appellant’s] suit for modification and therefore entitled to receive notice by service of citation have been duly served.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 156.003 (West 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.
