P. S.-C. v. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Williamson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00176-CV P. S.-C., APPELLANT V. THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Williamson County, Texas1 Trial Court No. 20-0047-CPSC1, Honorable Brandy Hallford, Presiding August 9, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, P.S.-C., proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s purported final judgment. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This is the second appeal in trial court cause number 20-0047-CPSC1. In the first appeal, we reversed the trial court’s judgment of July 20, 2020, and remanded the case 1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. for reconsideration of appellant’s post-judgment motion for sanctions. P.S.-C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 07-20-00302-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 10242, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 30, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). On remand, the trial court held a hearing on May 5, 2022, and orally denied appellant’s motion for sanctions. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s oral ruling. However, no written order has been filed with this Court to date. We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. Because we reversed the trial court’s judgment of July 20, 2020, there is no final judgment in this case until the trial court disposes of appellant’s remaining claim for sanctions by written order. See McIntyre v. Lexis Nexis, No. 05-11-00809-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8402, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 21, 2011, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“[a] record of the court’s ruling by the court reporter . . . is not an acceptable substitute for a written order.”). By letter of June 29, 2021, we notified appellant that it did not appear that a final judgment or appealable order had been issued by the trial court and directed him to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal by July 13 or the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has yet to respond to the Court’s inquiry. 2 Appellant has not presented this Court with a final judgment or appealable order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Per Curiam 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.
