TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00561-CV
NO. 03-19-00562-CV
C. R. D., Appellant
v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee
FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NOS. D-1-FM-15-000530 & D-1-FM-19-003368,
THE HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
C.R.D. filed these attempted appeals of decrees terminating her parental rights to
K.D.D., K.M.I., and J.A.J.V. However, both decrees are captioned as “Interlocutory Decree-
Termination of Parental Rights” and do not dispose of all parties and issues in the underlying
cases. Specifically, the decrees do not dispose of J.L.D.’s parental rights to K.D.D., B.D.I.’s
parental rights to K.M.I., and J.A.J.’s parental rights to J.A.J.V. Further, both decrees continue
the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as temporary managing conservator for
K.D.D., K.M.I., and J.A.J.V.
We have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain
interlocutory orders that the Legislature has designated as appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). These decrees are neither. There is no legislative
designation for interlocutory appeal of these decrees and they are not final for purposes of appeal
because they do not dispose of all parties and issues in the underlying cases. See Sabre Travel
Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. 2019) (noting that “[a]s a
general rule, appeals may be taken only from final judgments”); M.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Family
& Protective Servs., 300 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, pet. denied) (concluding
termination order appointing Department as child’s temporary managing conservator was not
“final order” and dismissing interlocutory appeal); In re A.N., No. 05-15-01235-CV, 2015 Tex.
App. LEXIS 12332, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 3, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“In a case in
which the Department of Family and Protective Services seeks an order terminating the parental
rights of both parents, an order that terminates the parental rights of only one of the parents is an
interlocutory order.”); In re F.M.-T., No. 02-12-00522-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4364, at *2
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of
jurisdiction because trial court’s order did not terminate parental rights of presumed father of one
child).
Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Jeff Rose, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 11, 2019
1
C.R.D. subsequently filed unopposed motions to dismiss these appeals for want of
jurisdiction. We dismiss those motions as moot.
2