In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00069-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF A.Y., D.Y., R.Y., S.Y., S.Y., AND Z.Y., MINOR
CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 325th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 325-675205-20
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant M.Y. (Father), proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an “Order
Denying Motion to Recuse” signed by the presiding judge of the Eighth
Administrative Judicial Region. We notified Father of our concern that we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal because the “Order Denying Motion to Recuse” is not a
final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We informed Father that unless
he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response within ten days
showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. 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 . . . on appeal
from the final judgment.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). The trial-court clerk has
confirmed that there is no final judgment in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal. 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: May 6, 2021
3