In the Interest of H.H., H.H., and H.H., Children Appeal from 89th District Court of Wichita County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00370-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF H.H., H.H., AND H.H., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 89th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. 190,898-C Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant J.H. 1 attempts to appeal from a trial court order denying his motion for enforcement of certain provisions in a 2020 divorce decree.2 See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.001. But appeals may be taken only from final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders,3 see Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); In re A.L., No. 02-17-00460-CV, 2018 WL 895206, at *1 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Feb. 15, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.), and the trial court’s order denying enforcement is neither, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e). Accordingly, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal, and we warned that we would dismiss the appeal unless, within ten days, Appellant (or any other party) showed grounds for continuing it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant’s counsel responded with the candid Because this appeal stems from a suit affecting the parent–child relationship, we use aliases to refer to the parties. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d). 1 On the same day that the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for enforcement, it entered new temporary orders in the underlying suit. 2 The increasing number of statutory exceptions for interlocutory appeals led the Texas Supreme Court to question whether “[l]imiting appeals to final judgments can no longer be said to be the general rule.” Indus. Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Ref. Co., 652 S.W.3d 11, 14 (Tex. 2022) (plurality op.) (quoting Dall. Symphony Ass’n, Inc. v. Reyes, 571 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex. 2019)). 3 2 acknowledgement that the challenged order “is not a final appealable order,” and he stated that he “does not contest the Court’s jurisdictional concern.” 4 We thus dismiss Appellant’s attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Delivered: December 8, 2022 After acknowledging that the court lacked jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, Appellant filed a mandamus petition challenging not only the order denying enforcement but also the temporary orders entered by the trial court on the same day. See Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re J.H., No. 02-22-00457-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth filed Nov. 21, 2022). 4 3
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.
