From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herrera v. TX DFPS

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jul 18, 2007
No. 04-06-00890-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2007)

Opinion

No. 04-06-00890-CV

Delivered and Filed: July 18, 2007.

Appeal from the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, Trial Court No. 05-1671-CV, Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding.

Sitting: CATHERINE STONE, Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Mary Ann Hererra appeals from an interlocutory order striking her petition in intervention. Because the record before this court fails to establish that we have jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Michael and Lee Kraus filed a petition to adopt their foster children, C.J.H. and J.A.S.M. Herrera, the children's maternal grandmother, filed a petition in intervention seeking to adopt the children. In response to Herrera's petition in intervention, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a motion to strike Herrera's pleading.

An associate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Herrera's petition in intervention. At the conclusion of the hearing, the associate judge ordered Herrera's petition in intervention stricken. Herrera subsequently appealed the associate judge's ruling in accordance with section 201.015 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.015 (Vernon 2002). On appeal, the Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, presiding judge of the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, upheld the associate judge's order striking Herrera's petition in intervention. This appeal followed.

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear an appeal only if it is from a final judgment. Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). Appellate courts, however, have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). Presently, "[n]o statute provides for interlocutory appeal of an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention, or denying permission to intervene." Barrett v. Barrett, No. 14-03-00373-CV, 2004 WL 1925972, *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (per curiam).

The record reflects that the trial court has not yet entered a final judgment in the underlying matter, and there are no severance orders appearing in the record. Therefore, the order striking Herrera's petition in intervention is interlocutory. See id. Because no statute provides for interlocutory appeal of an order striking a petition in intervention before the rendition of a final judgment, we dismiss Herrera's appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id.; see also Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1991, writ denied) ("It is settled law that an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention may not be appealed by the intervenor before the rendition of a final judgment.").


Summaries of

Herrera v. TX DFPS

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jul 18, 2007
No. 04-06-00890-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2007)
Case details for

Herrera v. TX DFPS

Case Details

Full title:Mary Ann HERRERA, Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Jul 18, 2007

Citations

No. 04-06-00890-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2007)

Citing Cases

De Voll v. Demonbreun

No statute provides for an interlocutory appeal of an order dismissing or striking a petition in…

De Voll v. Demonbreun

Further, no statute provides for an interlocutory appeal of an order dismissing or striking a petition in…