Opinion
03-23-00483-CV
11-02-2023
Nannie Johnson-Smith, Appellant v. Kimberly Chanell Mallory, Appellee
FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 22-2938-F395, THE HONORABLE RYAN D. LARSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
In this suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), Nannie Johnson-Smith filed a notice of appeal complaining of the trial court's May 10, 2023 "Order Retaining Jurisdiction." In that order, the trial court determined that Texas is the more appropriate forum to resolve the issues in this SAPCR and recognized the relinquishment of jurisdiction by a court of another state after the two courts conferred pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 152.201-.210. On September 29, 2023, the Clerk of this Court informed appellant that it appears this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because there is no final judgment or appealable order. Appellant has filed a response but has not cited any authority demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over the trial court's order retaining jurisdiction over the SAPCR.
This Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Scripps NP Operating, LLC v. Carter, 573 S.W.3d 781, 788 (Tex. 2019); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). The order that appellant challenges is not a final judgment because it does not dispose of all pending parties and claims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. Furthermore, the order appellant challenges does not meet the criteria of any of the statutorily enumerated exceptions to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not appealable, and appellant has not cited any authority conferring jurisdiction on this Court over her appeal. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) ("Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments.").
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).