In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00248-CV
___________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B. AND G.B., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 235th District Court
Cooke County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV20-00209
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
D.B. (Mother), proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an order signed by
the presiding judge of the Eighth Administrative Judicial Region denying her
“[Unopposed] Emergency Motion for Recusal of Judge for Termination of Parental
Rights Case: Bill of Review; Referral to Administrative Judge.” [Brackets in original.]
We notified Mother of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because
the trial court’s order did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory
order. We informed her that unless she 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. Mother has filed a response, but it does
not show grounds for continuing the appeal.
As we understand Mother’s response, she is arguing that the order denying her
motion—which she implies is based on both recusal and disqualification grounds—is
an appealable interlocutory order. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b (“Grounds for
Recusal and Disqualification of Judges”). Although an order denying a motion based
on either ground is interlocutory, such an order is not immediately appealable. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j). An order denying a recusal motion “may be reviewed only for
an abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” Tex. R. Civ. P.
18a(j)(1)(A). An order denying a disqualification motion “may be reviewed by
mandamus and may be appealed in accordance with other law.” Tex. R. Civ. P.
18a(j)(2). Here, there is no “other law” permitting the interlocutory appeal of an order
2
denying a disqualification motion. See Gore v. Gore, No. 05-13-01025-CV,
2014 WL 1018650, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 17, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, we lack jurisdiction
over an appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann
v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial-court clerk has confirmed
that there is no final judgment in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j).
Per Curiam
Delivered: October 28, 2021
3