In the Interest of J.S., a Child v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-24-00436-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 362nd District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23-11638-362
Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Xi-Amaru Republic (the Republic) attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
September 12, 2024 “Order Regarding the Child’s ICWA Status,” which stated that
J.S. is not an Indian Child pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1903, that the Republic is not a
federally recognized tribe, and that the Republic is not entitled to intervene in the
parental rights termination suit. We notified the parties that it appeared that the order
was not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. See, e.g., In re E.C.,
No. 02-14-00158-CV, 2014 WL 3536712, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 17,
2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citing Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes,
810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, writ denied), for the proposition
that an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention may not be appealed by
an intervenor before a final judgment is rendered). We instructed the Republic, or any
party desiring to continue the appeal, to respond in ten days showing grounds for
continuing the appeal, and we warned that the appeal was subject to dismissal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. The Republic and Appellee J.S.
filed a response, but neither response shows grounds for continuing this appeal.
This court has appellate jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and
from interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has specified are immediately
appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Neither the
Republic nor J.S. has cited us to a statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal for the
2
order at issue,1 and we have found none. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); cf. E.C., 2014 WL 3536712, at
*1.
Per Curiam
Delivered: October 17, 2024
1
The Republic’s response to our jurisdiction letter states, “[W]e believe this case
qualifies for interlocutory appeal based on the unique jurisdictional matters involving
the indigenous autonomy of the Xi-Amaru Republic and the child’s protection under
both [the Indian Child Welfare Act] and [the American Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples].” Similarly, J.S.’s response states, “The order in question
significantly impacts the rights and welfare of the child and the jurisdiction of the
tribal authorities, which may warrant immediate appellate review under the principles of
protecting the best interests of the child and preserving the tribe[’]s rights.”
[Emphasis added.]
3