In the Interest of A.S., A.S., and G.S., Children Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Randall County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-19-00093-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., A.S., AND G.S., CHILDREN On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 75,425-L1, Honorable Jack M. Graham, Presiding March 27, 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. Appellant, S.S., mother of A.S., A.S., and G.S., attempts to appeal from an order requiring her to participate in services provided by the Department of Family and Protective Services. The order was entered pursuant to the authority of § 264.203 of the Texas Family Code. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 264.203 (a)(1)-(2) (West 2014) (stating that the court on request of the department may order the parent, conservator, guardian, or other member of the subject child’s household to participate in the services the department provides or purchases for alleviating the effects of the abuse or neglect that has occurred or reducing the reasonable likelihood that the child may be abused or neglected in the immediate or foreseeable future). In that order, the trial court also scheduled further hearings on the matter. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. We have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). An order directing a parent to participate in child and family services pursuant to section 264.203 of the Family Code is not a final order or an order that is subject to interlocutory appeal. In re N.N., No. 08-18-00049-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2643, at *1 (Tex. App.— El Paso Apr. 16, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction an interlocutory appeal from an order requiring participation in services). Questioning whether we had jurisdiction over the appeal, we notified S.S. of our concern and directed her to explain in writing why jurisdiction exists. She replied but failed to illustrate that the order in question was either final or one regarding which statute permits an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want 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.
