In the Interest of S. S., a child--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Smith County

NO. 12-07-00111-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

APPEAL FROM THE

IN THE INTEREST OF S.S., COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF

A CHILD

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Luther Alan Smith appeals from an order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services temporary managing conservator of S.S. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Texas Family Code permits a party to appeal a final order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 109.002(b) (Vernon 2002); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 105.001(e) (Vernon Supp. 2006). To be final, a judgment must determine the rights of the parties and dispose of all the issues involved so no future action will be necessary to settle and determine the case. In the Interest of N.J.G., 980 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1998, no pet.); Kelley v. Kelley, 583 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. Civ. App. Austin 1979, writ dism d). A judgment is interlocutory when it determines less than all issues as to all parties thereby leaving something to be determined and adjudicated by the court in disposing of the parties and their rights. Kelley, 583 S.W.2d at 673. An order is interlocutory if it leaves open the issue of permanent conservatorship. Id.; see N.J.G., 980 S.W.2d at 767 (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal from trial court s order that left open question of permanent conservatorship).

Here, the trial court did not resolve the issue of permanent conservatorship. Consequently, the order is interlocutory. See N.J.G., 980 S.W.2d at 767; Kelley, 583 S.W.2d at 673. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to consider Smith s appeal.

On March 20, 2007, we notified Smith by letter that the information received in this appeal does not include a final judgment or appealable order. Smith was further notified that unless the information was amended before April 19, 2007 to show this court s jurisdiction, the appeal would be dismissed. The deadline for amendment has passed, and Smith has not shown the jurisdiction of this court or otherwise responded to our notice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered May 2, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)