In the Interest of A.A., A.A., L.A., L.A., R.A., children Appeal from 328th District Court of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motions Denied; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00511-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A.A., L.A., L.A., AND R.A., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 328th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCV-237456A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant R.M. attempts to appeal the Order for Monitored Return signed by the trial court on May 24, 2018. An order for monitored return is interlocutory and not appealable. In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 348 S.W.3d 492, 498 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding). On June 28, 2018, this court notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless a response was filed showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed two motions on July 6, 2018: (1) a motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal, and (2) a motion to reinstate, which we construe as a response to our dismissal notice. The motion to reinstate states in relevant part: I am requesting that the following cases be placed on the docket because this case is with 14-18-00509-CV. There should not be a case in the courts for me. So I am requesting both cases to be viewed so both can be dismissed and disposed of. Both cases are public corruption cases. . . . [A]nd no abuse occurred. Appellant’s motion refers to her other appeal pending in this court, No. 1418-00509-CV. That appeal involves another of appellant’s children, C.F., Jr., and is from a judgment entitled, “Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent Child Relationship.” Such a judgment is appealable. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002. However, the appealability of the final order in appeal 14-18-00509-CV is immaterial to the appealability of the order for monitored return in this appeal. This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion to reinstate and her motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal are DENIED AS MOOT. Appeal number 14-18-00509-CV remains pending. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby. 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.
