In the Interest of S.E.P. a child Appeal from 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-18-00417-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.P., a Child From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013 EM5-04455 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2018 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On June 20, 2018, the trial court signed a final order in this suit to modify the parent-child relationship. The next day, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On July 13, 2018, Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial—which the trial court granted. Later, the trial court set a hearing on temporary orders for August 30, 2018. On that date, the trial court held the hearing and signed the parties’ agreement for temporary orders. On October 4, 2018, we advised Appellant that, generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.” Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We further advised Appellant that temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship are not subject to interlocutory appeal, Dancy v. 04-18-00417-CV Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam), and are not final orders subject to regular appeal, In re Chester, 357 S.W.3d 103, 106 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.). We ordered Appellant to show cause to this court in writing by October 15, 2018, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). To date, Appellant has not filed a response to our October 4, 2018 order. The appellate record does not contain an appealable order, see In re Chester, 357 S.W.3d at 106, and Appellant has not shown why this appeal should not be dismissed, see Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 95. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. PER CURIAM -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.