in the Interest of A.J., a Child ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00290-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.J., A
CHILD
----------
FROM THE 231ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant J.J.2 attempts to appeal an interlocutory order for the monitored
return of a child to a parent along with other pretrial rulings associated with that
order. The trial court’s July 25, 2011 “Order for Monitored Return of Child to
Parent” appointed M.J., the mother, as temporary possessory conservator with
care, custody, and control of the child, A.J. The order also provided that M.J. and
A.J. must not have contact with appellant, who is A.J.’s father. The order did not
purport to finally dispose of the suit; instead, it extended a dismissal date for the suit
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
The names of the parties have been replaced with their initials. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d) (West 2008).
1
until January 21, 2012.3 Appellant filed notice of appeal, contending that the trial
court had violated his constitutional and due process rights.
On August 26, 2011, we notified appellant of our concern that we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal because it does not appear to arise from a final
judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, and we informed him that the appeal
may be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We received a response, but
it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal; the response confirms that
appellant is appealing pretrial rulings. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (West 2008); Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2008) (listing types of appealable
interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001)
(stating that generally an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment and that a
judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all issues); In re
J.W.L., 291 S.W.3d 79, 83 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding [mand.
denied]) (reiterating that temporary orders in family law cases are not appealable);
see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DELIVERED: October 13, 2011
3
See id. § 263.403 (West 2008).
2