O pinion i ssued October 4 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01 - 11 - 0 0 438 - CV

____________ ANGELA HUBERT, Appellant

V. ALVIN WAYNE HUBERT, JR. , Appellee On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 0218084
MEMORANDUM O PINION Appellant , Angela Hubert , attempts to appeal from the trial court’s March 25, 2011 “Temporary Orders in Suit to Modify Parent

- Child Relationship ” and temporary injunction. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.2

In 2003, appellant and appellee , Alvin Wayne Hubert, Jr

. , divorced. The trial court signed an agreed final decree, appoi nting appellant and appellee as joint managing conservator s of the ir minor child

. On March 25, 2011, on appellee’s motion to modify the parent

- child relationship , the trial court signed tem porary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child

. ” See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . §

. 105.001 (a) (West 2008) ( authorizing temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child” in suits affecting parent

- child relationship ). On May 23, 2011, the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution , and appellant appealed

. Subsequently, however , the trial court reinstated the case . 1 Appell ee filed an amended motion to modify t he parent

- child relationship , and, a ccording to the district cle rk’s office, t he case is currently set for t rial on the merits. Hence, appellant is attempting an interlocutory appeal of a temporary order. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal only if authorized by statute. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014 (West Supp. 2012 ); Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352

– 53 (Tex. 1998).

1 On June 17, 2011, the trial court reinstated the case. T he case was again dismissed for want of pr osecution on December 5, 2011. The next day, however, the trial court, on appellee’s motion, set a hearing to take up the temporary orders.3

Texas Family Code section 105.001 expressly precludes an interlocutory app eal from a temporary order in a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship , as here

. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . §

. 105.001(e) ; Mason v. Mason , 256 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Marley v. Marley , No. 01

– 05

– 00992

– CV, 2006 WL 3094325, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 27, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op) (holding that Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(4) authorizing appeal from temporary injunction does not control

over Fam ily Code preclusion of interlocutory appeals from te mporary orders )

. Because s ection 105.001(e) expressly precludes appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s temporary orders, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . §

. 105.00 1(e); Stary , 967 S.W.2d at 352

– 53. The Court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating t his court’s jurisdiction

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3( a). Appellant filed a response , but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

.