Opinion filed October 19, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-17-00248-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.N.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 08506-CX

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, the father of T.N.S., filed a pro se notice of appeal in this cause on 

September 12, 2017. Appellant stated in his notice of appeal that he was appealing 

from a judgment entered on August 30, 2017. Upon docketing the case, we notified 

Appellant that it did not appear that the trial court had entered a final, appealable 

order in this matter, and we requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to 

continue this appeal. 

The documents on file in this court reflect that, on August 29, 2017, the trial 

court entered an order in which it granted a nonsuit and dismissed the case based 

upon a notice of nonsuit filed by the child’s mother. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
2

§ 161.203 (West 2014) (providing that nonsuit in termination case must be approved 

by trial court). In his response to this court’s dismissal letter, Appellant states that 

he had filed a cross-petition after the mother filed a petition, that the trial court 

abused its discretion when it dismissed Appellant’s cross-petition, and that 

Appellant brought this appeal for this court “to address the dismissal of his crosspetition.” Attached to Appellant’s response is a letter from the trial court to 

Appellant. In that letter, the trial court explained: “Cause No. 8506-CX has been 

dismissed. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has filed suit 

with which you have been served in Cause No. 8868-CX.” The letter reflects that 

Cause No. 8868-CX is also styled “In the Interest of T.N.S., A Child.” The trial court 

further explained to Appellant, who is incarcerated, that the Texas Department of 

Family and Protective Services has emergency custody of the child and that a hearing 

has been set in that cause. The trial court noted that it had mailed an affidavit of 

indigence to Appellant for him to fill out and return if he desired to have an attorney 

appointed in that cause. 

In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, a trial court may, on its own 

motion, “require the parties to replead in order that any issue affecting the parentchild relationship may be determined in the suit.” FAM. § 102.001. It appears that 

the trial court in this case has attempted to do just that. The documents on file in 

this court reflect that no final, appealable order involving the conservatorship of 

T.N.S. has been entered, that the issue of conservatorship remains pending with the 

trial court in Cause No. 8868-CX, and that the trial court has required Appellant to 

replead in order that the issue of conservatorship of T.N.S. may be determined in 

Cause No. 8868-CX. 

Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from 

final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 

2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). It appears that no 
3

final judgment has been rendered and that the matter of the conservatorship of T.N.S. 

remains pending in the trial court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a). 

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

October 19, 2017

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.