In the Interest of J.M.E., C.J.V., T.A.W., R.A.C., and S.S.H., children Appeal from 166th 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. 04-21-00317-CV In the Interest of J.M.E., C.J.V., T.A.W., R.A.C., and S.S.H., Children From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021PA00277 Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 20, 2021 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION L.M.W. attempts to appeal the trial court’s August 21, 2021 interlocutory order terminating her parental rights to her children. The order is interlocutory because it does not dispose of all of the pending parties and claims in the underlying parental termination case. This court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and certain types of interlocutory orders that have been designated by the Legislature. C.R.D. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., Nos. 03-19-00561-CV, 03-19-00562-CV, 2019 WL 4281929, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). An order is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the case. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). This court does not have jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders in parental termination cases. See C.R.D., 2019 WL 4281929, at *1 (dismissing appeals for lack of 04-21-00317-CV jurisdiction because the trial court’s interlocutory order only disposed of the mother’s parental rights and the claims regarding the parental rights of the other parties remained pending); In re F.M.-T., No. 02-12-00522-CV, 2013 WL 1337789, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction when the trial court’s interlocutory termination order did not dispose of one parent’s rights as to one child). On September 8, 2021, we ordered L.M.W. to show cause, on or before September 24, 2021, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. L.M.W. did not file a response. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
