## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00364

- CV

____________ _______________

On Appeal from the 324th Distric t Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324

- 595838

- 16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Walla ch, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wal lach 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### H.L., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 4, 2019, p ro se Appellant s, the child H.L. ’ s paren ts (Parents) , filed a notice of appe al from the associate judge ’ s September 17, 2019 report

. Parents timely requested a de novo hearing before the referring district cou rt , and that hearing was held Sept ember 30, 2019, but no resulting order has been signed. This court
therefore notifie d the parties tha t ab sent a response showing grounds fo r continuing the appeal, this court could dismiss th e appeal based on the abs ence of a final judgment or an appealable interl ocu tory order

. In Parents ’ respon s e , they indicate that they are inste ad seeking a restricted appeal of the May 30, 2019 final judg ment. Either way , we lack jurisdiction.
W e have ap pellate jurisdiction of appeal s from final judgments and from interlocutory orders that the legislature has specified are appealable. See Lehmann v.
Har

– Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) ; see, e.g. , Tex. Civ . Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51

. 014

. Fir st

, a bsent some exceptions not applicable here, w hen a party in a family law case files a timely request for a de novo hearing c hallenging t h e associate judge ’ s report , that report is not a fin al judgment or an appealable o rder. See Tex.
Fam. Code Ann. § § 201.015, 201.016; In re C.R

- A.A. , No. 04

- 16

- 00587

- CV,
2016 WL 6238237, at *1 (Tex. Ap p.

— San Antonio Oct. 26, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (m em. op.); Graha m v. G rah am , 414 S.W.3d 80 0 , 801 (T ex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist. ] 2013 , no p et.)

. Accor dingly, we do n ot have jurisdiction over an appeal from the associate judge ’ s September 17, 2019 report.3 Second , to the extent Parents claim that their notice of appeal is in fact a notice of restricted ap peal from the May 30, 2019 final judgment , Rule 30 of the Texas R u les of Appellate Procedure does not allow parties (like Parents) who p articipate d in the hearing resulting in the j udgment challen ged to file a restricted appeal. See Tex. R. App . P. 30; Fr anklin v. Wilcox , 53 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Tex. A p p.

— Fort Worth 2001, n o pet .) (dismi ssing attempted restricted appeal for want of jurisdiction when Franklin

“ appeared at the hearing th r ough his attorn ey ” and “ participated through his attorney
in the hearing ” b y conducting cross

- examination)

. The Rule 30 requirements are jur isdictional. In re B.H.B

. , 336 S.W .3d 303, 305 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2010, pet. denied).
Because the a ssociate judg e ’ s September 17, 2019 r eport is no t a final judgment

or an appeal able order and because P arents cannot meet the Rule 30 requirements for
f iling a restricted appeal from the May 30, 2019 final judgment , we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T ex. R. App. 30, 4 2 .3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Mike Wallach Mi ke Wallach J ustice
Delivered: December 19, 2019