In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00213-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.D.M., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 72nd District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-509,879, Honorable Ruben Gonzales Reyes, Presiding
September 8, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Andrew McDaniel appealed from an order denying his motion to stay the prosecution of
a suit initiated by Stephenie Jones to terminate his parental rights. He sought to stay
the action until a federal proceeding was adjudicated. The federal action apparently
involved an attempt to overturn a criminal conviction purportedly underlying Jones’
lawsuit.
Normally, an appellate court only has appellate jurisdiction to review final
judgments. Yet, there are instances where we can review interlocutory orders. Those
instances are described in § 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
The order from which appeal was attempted here did not finally dispose of all the
parties or claims. So, it is interlocutory. Cantu Servs., Inc. v. United Freedom Assocs.,
Inc. 329 S.W.3d 58, 63 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.) (stating that an order failing
to dispose of all claims by all parties is interlocutory). Furthermore, it is not
encompassed by one of the categories described in § 51.014 of the Civil Practice and
Remedies Code. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review and must dismiss it. Cantu
Servs., Inc. v. United Freedom Assocs., Inc., supra.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Per Curiam
2
in the Interest of A.G.D.M., a Child
Combined Opinion