in the Interest of E.G.D. and E.A.D., Children ( 2016 )

Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 17, 2016
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00431-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF E.G.D. AND E.A.D., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-06657
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Lang
Opinion by Justice Bridges
The Court has before it Denise Shelly Doyle’s June 7, 2016 motion to dismiss appeal for
want of jurisdiction. A review of the record shows Enoch Spurgeon Doyle filed his April 13,
2016 appeal of the trial court’s April 12, 2016 temporary orders.
Appellate courts may review only final and appealable judgments or interlocutory orders
specifically made appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195
(Tex. 2001). Temporary orders involving child support and custody entered while a divorce
proceeding is pending are interlocutory, and no statutory provision authorizes appeal of those
orders. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(e) (West 2014); see also Dancy v. Daggett, 815
S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam) (op. on mot. reh’g) (holding mandamus is appropriate
remedy to challenge temporary orders governing issues of conservatorship and child support
because trial court’s issuance of temporary orders not subject to interlocutory appeal). Here, the
orders Enoch seeks to appeal are temporary orders pending final decree of divorce. Therefore,
the interlocutory appeal is precluded by family code section 105.001(e). See TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 105.001(e) (West 2014).
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
160431F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF E.G.D. AND On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District
E.A.D., CHILDREN Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-06657.
No. 05-16-00431-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Chief
Justice Wright and Justice Lang
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want
of jurisdiction.
We ORDER that Denise Shelly Doyle recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from
Enoch Spurgeon Doyle.
Judgment entered June 17, 2016.
–3–