in the Interest of C.R., a Child ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00378-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.R., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-704950-21
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant S.R., proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an “Order Denying
Request for Recusal” signed by the presiding judge of the Eighth Administrative
Judicial Region. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a, 18b(b). We notified S.R. of our
concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the “Order Denying
Request for Recusal” did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory
order. We informed her that unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal
filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would
dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Ten days have
passed, and we have received no response.
“An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for an abuse of
discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A) (emphasis
added). The trial-court clerk has informed us that there is no final judgment in this
case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a), 43.2(f); Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); Thayer v. Thayer, Nos. 02-14-00025-CV, 02-
14-00026-CV, 2014 WL 982433, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 13, 2014, no
pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (explaining that an order denying a recusal motion is not
an appealable interlocutory order and may be reviewed only “on appeal from the final
judgment” (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A))).
2
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice
Delivered: April 21, 2022
3