Opinion issued August 11, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 6
- 00 3 6 9
- CV

——————————— CHERI VEGA , Appella nt

V. ARTURO LIRA , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 3 09 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 20 08
- 11473
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Cheri Vega, attempt s t o appeal from the trial court’s two interlocutory orders, the first one compelled payment of the amicus attorney’s fees and monetary sanctions, and the second o ne denied appellant’s motion to disqualify the amicus attorney. The trial court had signed the final divorce decree in 2008, and the underlying suit affecting the parent

- child relationship (“S APCR”) involved post

-2

divorce proceedin gs in which the trial court had, among other things, appointed an amicus attorney ad litem

. The appellee, Arturo Lira, filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in this Court

. We agree with appellee, grant t he motion, and dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction.
T h i s C o u rt generally h as j u r i s d i c t io n o v er a p p e a l s f

r o m f i n al o r d ers arising under the Texas Family Code u nl e s s a s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z es a n i n t e r lo c u to ry a pp e a l

. S e e T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 109

. 0 02 ( b ) ( W e s t Supp. 2 01 5 ) ( “ A n a pp e a l m a y b e
t a k en b y a n y p ar t y t o a su i t fr o m a f in al o r d e r r e n d er e d u nd e r t h i s t i tl e.”); cf

. T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R

EM
. C O DE A NN
. § § 5 1

. 0 12, 51.014(a)(1)

– (1 2 ) ( W e s t Supp. 2 01 5 ) (listing appealable interlocutory orders) ; C M H H o m es v. P e r e z , 3 4 0 S. W .3d 444 , 44 7 ( T e x . 2 01 1 ) ( “ U nl e s s a st a tu t e a u t h o r i z e s an i nt e r l o c u t o ry a pp e a l , a p p e l l a t e

c ou r t s g e n er a ll y o n l y h a v e j u r i s d i c t io n o v er a p p ea l s f r o m f in al j u d g m

e nts .”).
On April 4, 2016, the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean signed an “Order o n Motion to Compel Payment of Amicus Fees, Awarding Attorney’s Fees and Sanction ” (hereinafter, “Sanctions Order”). This Sanctions Order, among other things, ordered appellant to pay $6,504.12 in attorney’s fees to Karleana Farias, the amicus attorney appointed as attorney ad litem for the minor children, and sanctioned appellant’s attorney $500.00 to be paid to Farias. On May 3, 2016, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court from this Sanctions Order, which was assigned to this Court.3

On May 12, 2016 , Judge Dean signed an “Order on Motion to Disqualify Amicus Attorney ” (hereinafter, “Disqualification Order ”). This Disqualification Order, among other things, denied appellant’s motion to disqualify Farias as amicus attorney . On June 10 , 2016, appellan t filed a notice of appeal from this Disqualification Order, which was also assigned to this Court under the pending appellate cause number 01

– 16

– 00369

– CV. On July 7, 2016, t he Clerk of this Court notified appellant that t h i s appeal , involving two interlocutory orders, wa s subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless s he timely responded and showed how this Court had jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3 (a), ( c). A lthough a ppellant did not timely file a response to the notice, she filed a brief on the merits on July 11, 2016 , which included a statement regarding the jurisdiction . Appellant’s statement essentially summarized the procedural history and stated that the trial judge had informed counsel on March 29, 2016, that counsel could fi le a post

- judgment motion for rehearing after the judge signed the Sanctions O rder, which was signed on April 4, 2016 . However, appellant’s statement i s inadequate to show how this Court has jurisdiction over either of her notices of appeal involving the Sanctions or Disqualification Orders

. Also on July 11, 2016, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction regarding the second notice of appeal, contending that the May 12, 2016 Disqualification Order w as a non - appealable inte rlocutory order. More than ten days4

has passed, but appellant has not filed a response to the motion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.3(a).
Neither the Sanctions Order nor the Disqualification Order are final orders under the Family Code , and they do not fit with in any of the categories of appealable interlocutory orders

. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 109

. 0 02 ( b ) ; T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R

EM
. C O DE A NN
. § 51.014(a)(1)

– (1 2 )

. Thus, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See , e.g. , Smith v. Robertson , No. 01

– 15

– 00538

– CV , 2015 WL 9311431, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2015, no pet.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal of refusal of trial court to sign an order in SAPCR because records did not include final order) (citation omitted)

. C onclusion Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss th i s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3( a); 43.2(f). We dismiss a ny other pending motions as moot. 1

1 However, we note that appellant is not without a remedy and may seek mandamus relief in a properly

- filed petition. Cf. In re Sanders , 153 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (noting mandamus relief is appropriate where trial court abuses discretion in disqualifying counsel because there is no adequate remedy by appeal); see J.K. & Susie L. Wadley Research Inst. & Blood Bank v. Morris , 776 S.W.2d 271, 275 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1989, no writ) (concluding “that mandamus will lie, in an appropriate case, to direct a trial court to vacate an order denying a motion to disqualify ”) ; see also In re Groves , No. 01

– 15

– 00537

– CV, 2016 WL 92164 5, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 10, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (granting mandamus petition to vacate oral ruling granting motion s to disqualify counsel and for monetary sanctions because, among other things, “ the record contains no evidence to support imposition of sanctions on” relator’s counsel)

.5 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle.