Opinion
02-24-00332-CV
08-29-2024
In the Interest of J.G. and A.G., Children
On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-594719-16
Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DANA WOMACK, JUSTICE
On September 12, 2023, the trial court signed its "Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship" (the SAPCR Order) in a suit involving J.C.P. (Father) and A.Y.G. (Mother) concerning their children J.G. and A.G. (the Children). After the SAPCR Order was signed, Appellant Y.L. (Stepfather), the Children's stepfather, intervened in the lawsuit. Stepfather later appealed from the SAPCR Order in a different appeal with our court, Cause No. 02-23-00445-CV. That appeal remains pending.
After Stepfather filed his notice of appeal in Cause No. 02-23-00445-CV, Mother filed in the trial court a motion to dismiss his petition in intervention for lack of standing. The trial court later granted Mother's motion to dismiss and dismissed Stepfather's intervention due to lack of jurisdiction (the Dismissal Order). Thereafter, an associate judge made an "Associate Judge's Report" (the Report), whereby the associate judge noted that the trial court had heard Stepfather's motion to reconsider the Dismissal Order and that the trial court denied the motion. In this appeal, Stepfather appeals from the Report.
On July 22, 2024, we notified Stepfather of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because the Report did not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 200 (Tex. 2001) (holding that, generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments or interlocutory orders authorized by statute); In re A.L.P., No. 13-16-00342-CV, 2016 WL 4699195, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg, Sept. 8, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ("Because the report of an associate judge is not a final, appealable order or judgment, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal."); In re I.G.R., No. 04-14-00262-CV, 2014 WL 3930199, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Aug. 13, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ("We cannot, however, find any statutory authority that allows a party to appeal from an interlocutory order that dismisses a petition in intervention."); Barrett v. Barrett, No. 14-03-00373-CV, 2004 WL 1925972, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 31, 2004, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ("No statute provides for interlocutory appeal of an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention, or denying permission to intervene.").
We informed Stepfather that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by August 1, 2024, showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Stepfather has not filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195, 200; A.L.P., 2016 WL 4699195, at *1; I.G.R., 2014 WL 3930199, at *2; Barrett, 2004 WL 1925972, at *1.
Moreover, "[c]ourts have consistently held that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment is rendered is barred as a matter of law." Black v. Franklin Serv. Stations, Inc., No. 03-11-00069-CV, 2011 WL 4507335, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Sept. 30, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see Gore v. Peck, 191 S.W.3d 927, 928 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.) ("[A] petition in intervention must be made before judgment is rendered."). An appellate court will dismiss an appeal complaining about the dismissal of a petition for intervention when the petition was filed after a final judgment was rendered. See Black, 2011 WL 4507335, at *1; Gore, 191 S.W.3d at 928. Thus, to the extent that Stepfather's appeal in this case could be read as a complaint about a petition for intervention that was made after a final order was rendered (e.g., the SAPCR Order), we dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Black, 2011 WL 4507335, at *1; Gore, 191 S.W.3d at 928.