COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00219-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K.L., J.L.,
AND K.L., CHILDREN
----------
FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 360-571807-15
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant P.L. (Father) attempts to appeal from an “Order on Motion for
Withdrawal of Counsel” signed on May 18, 2017. On June 28, 2017, we sent a
letter to Father expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over
this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final judgment or
appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that “the general rule, with a few mostly statutory
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”); Davis v.
Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-10-00624-CV, 2010 WL
4367076, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 5, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“A trial
court’s order granting a motion to withdraw is not an appealable interlocutory
order.”). We stated that unless Father or any party desiring to continue the
appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by July 10,
2017, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a), 44.3. Father filed a response, but it does not show grounds for
continuing the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: July 27, 2017
2