In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-19-00428-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B. AND G.B., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 235th District Court
Cooke County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV16-00788
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant D.B. (Mother), proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal an “Order
Denying Motion to Recuse” signed by the presiding judge of the Eighth
Administrative Judicial Region on October 28, 2019. Mother’s “Motion to Recuse
Judge” was filed on April 27, 2018, after the trial court had entered a final order
terminating the parent-child relationship between Mother and D.B. (Dylan) and G.B.
(Gabby), and while that termination order was on appeal with our court.1 See In re
D.B., No. 02-18-00015-CV, 2018 WL 2324689 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 22,
2018, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). We subsequently affirmed the termination
order, and our mandate issued on March 4, 2019. Id. at *18. Thus, the trial court had
entered a final judgment and our mandate had issued before the presiding judge of the
Eighth Administrative Judicial Region signed the “Order Denying Motion to Recuse.”
On December 4, 2019, we sent Mother a letter expressing our concern that we
lack jurisdiction because the “Order Denying Motion to Recuse” was not a final
judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A) (“An
order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on
appeal from the final judgment.”). We informed Mother that unless she filed a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Although Mother has filed a response, it does not show
1
We use aliases to refer to the children. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).
2
grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 43.2(f); Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); In re M.A.A., No. 05-14-01180-CV, 2016
WL 4442839, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 23, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding
that appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider complaint regarding order denying
motion to recuse where said order was unconnected to any final judgment in the
case).
Per Curiam
Delivered: January 16, 2020
3