In the Interest of R.G.S. and K.S., Children Appeal from 72nd District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00322-CV IN THE INTEREST OF R.G.S. AND K.S., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 72nd District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-2022-FM-1687, Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Associate Judge Presiding November 23, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Eva Haydee Portillo, appeals from the trial court’s Report of Associate Judge (Temporary Orders). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments, those that dispose of all pending parties and claims. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). 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). The temporary order issued by the associate judge in this family law case is neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See In re A.G.D.M., 533 S.W.3d 546, 547 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2017, no pet.) (dismissing appeal from temporary order issued by an associate judge in a family law matter for want of jurisdiction). By letter of October 25, 2022, we notified Portillo that it did not appear that a final judgment or appealable order had been issued by the trial court and directed her to show how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Portillo has not filed a response or had any further communication with this Court to date. Because Portillo has not presented this Court with a final judgment or appealable order, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Per Curiam The appeal is also susceptible to dismissal for Portillo’s failure to pay the requisite filing fee. By letter of October 24, 2022, we notified Portillo that the filing fee was overdue and that unless she was excused from paying court costs, failure to pay the filing fee by November 3 would result in dismissal of the appeal. To date, Portillo has not paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed without payment of court costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 25.1(b), 42.3(c). 1 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.
