Opinion issued November 7, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeal For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 16
- 00970
- CV

——————————— JULES WILLIAMS , Appella nt

V. MARVLYN JENNIFER WIL LIAMS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2015
- 35489

MEMORANDUM OPINION Jules Williams appeals from the final decree entered in his divorce from Marvlyn Jennifer Williams. We affirm.2 BACKGROUND Jules sued Marvlyn for divorce, and M arvlyn countersued . The trial court subsequently entered a final divorce decree, from which Jules appeals. DISCUSSION In ten issues, Jules contends that the trial court erred in :

● issuing temporary orders, including one or more temporary restraining order s and temporary injuncti on s ;

● denying him his constitutional right to a jury trial;

● failing to af

ford him appropriate relief as to opposing counsel’s alleged witness tampering;

● violating his right to free speech by admitting into evidence statements that Jules made on the in ternet;

● granting Marvlyn a divorce on grounds of adultery and cruelty, making her sole managing conservator of their children, and dividing their property based on insufficient evidence ; and

● improperly awarding Marvlyn $10,700 in attorney’s fees.
I. Te mporary orders Jules contends that th e trial court’s temporary orders improperly excluded him from his home, removed the children from his care, and deprived him of access to the children. These orders continued in force until the trial court entered the divorce decree

. T his court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, not interlocutory orders , unless interlocutory appeal is authorized by statute

. Qwest
Comm c’n s Corp. v. AT&T Corp. , 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam).3

Temporary restraining orders are not reviewable by appeal. In re Office of Att’y
Gen. , 257 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam). Temporary injunctions ordinarily are reviewable by interlocutory appeal, T E X
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE § 51.014 (a)(4) , but become moot once the trial court renders a final judgment. Isuani
v. Man ske

- Sheffield Radiology Grp. , 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam). However, in cases involving the conservatorship of children a nd in divorce proceedings, temporary orders are not su bject to interlocutory review , other than an order appointing a receiver. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE §§ 6.507, 105.001(e). These temporary orders likewise become moot upon the entry of a final order or decree.
M auldin v. Clements , 428 S.W.3d 247, 261

– 62 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). Accordingly , we lack jurisdiction to review challenges to the trial court’s temporary orders, and thus overrule Jules’s first, third, and eighth issues.
II. Lack of a reporter’s record The appellate rec ord was due on January 30, 2017. J ules failed to pay or make satisfactory arrangements to pay for the record . The c lerk of the c ourt notified Jules , who is not appealing as an indigent, that unless he filed proof of payment or satisfactory arrangement of payment by March 3, the court could consider and decide any issues for which a reporter’s record was unnecessary. After Jules failed to satisfy this deadline, the court notified him tha t it would decide those issues and ordered the parties to file their briefs. To date, a reporter’s record has not been filed4

and Jules has filed neither proof of payment nor proof of satisfactory arrangement of payment for it

. The remainder of Jules’s cha llenges turn on the evidenc e introduced at trial or rulings made by the trial court

. Jules contends that he did not waive trial by jury ; Marvlyn responds that he did. Jules contends that Marvlyn’ s counsel tampered with a witness by excusing that witness before the witness had testified and that the trial court failed to provide him with adequate relief from this misconduct ; Marvlyn disputes Jules’s account. Jules contends that the trial court violated his free

- speech rights by considering statements Jule s made on the internet , but there is nothing in
the record that demonstrates the substance of these statement s and the trial court’s
consideration of them at trial . Jules contends that the evidence is insufficient to support multiple aspects of the divorce decree; howev er, neither the witness testimony nor the trial exhibits are before us. Finally, Jules contends that the trial court’s fee award was improper , but the record does not contain any of the proceedings concerning attorney’s fees.
When the merits of an appellate issue depend on the evidence introduced at trial or the rulings made by the trial court, a reporter’ s record of the relevant proof or challenged ruling is necessary; without the reporter’s record , the appellate court
cannot ascertai n whether there was reversible error. See Curry v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety , 472 S.W.3d 346, 349

– 50 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.);5

Huston v. United Parcel Serv. , 434 S.W.3d 630, 6 36

– 37 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) ; Ni cholson v. Fifth Third Bank , 226 S.W.3d 581, 5 83 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)

. Jules was responsible for presenting a record sufficient to show reversible error. Christiansen v. Prezelski , 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam); Ga rcia v. Sasson , 516 S.W.3d 585, 590 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.). He failed to make the necessary arrangements to provide one; we hold that the lack of a record forecloses appellate review of his remaining challenges. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(b)(3). CONCLUSION We affirm the judgment of the trial court

.

Jane Bland Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.