### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00135
- CV

Wesley Eugene Perkins , Appellant

v. Kristy Lynn Perkins , Appellee

FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 20
- 002604 , THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON , JUDGE PRE SIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Wesley Eugene Perkins attempts to appeal from a temporary order rendered in th e un derlying divorce proceeding and suit affecting the parent

- child relationship (SAPCR)

. Generally, appeals may be taken only f rom final judg ments. Lehmann v. Har

– Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001)

. Interlocutory orders may be appealed only when expressly permitted by statute. Ball y Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001)

. Texas courts strictly con strue statute s authorizing interlocutory appeals. America Online, Inc. v. William s , 958 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet. ).

The Texas Family Code specifically precludes the interlocutory appea l of temporary orders, except tho se appointing a receiver

. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code § § 6.507 ( “ An order under this subchapter [applying to temporary orders rendered in divorce su its] , except an order

1 M andamu s , however, may be an appropriate remedy w hen a trial court abuses its discretion in issuing temporary orders in a SAPCR

. See , e.g. , In re Mays

- Hooper , 189 S.W.3d 777, 778 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (orig. procee di ng)

.2

ap pointing a receive r, is not subject to in terlocutory appeal. ” ), 10 5.001(e) ( “ Temporary o rde rs rendered under this section [applying to SAPCRs] are not subject to interlocutory app eal. ” ) ; Dancy v. D aggett , 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam) ( “ [T] the trial court ’ s issuance of temporary orders [in a divorce proceeding] is not subject t o i nterlocutory appe a l

. ”)

. Because it appeared to this C ourt that Per kins is attempting to appeal temporary orders, which the Family Code expressly prohibits, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties of this Court ’ s intention to dismiss the appeal for wa nt of jurisdictio n unless Perkins filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a)

. Perkins timely responded , framing the trial cou rt ’ s temporary order as a “ temporary injunction ” properly appealable under the Civil Practice a n d R emedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4) ( “ A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court . . . that

. . . grants or refuses a temporary injunction

. . . a s p r o v i d e d b y C h a p t e r 6 5

. . . . ” )

. P erkin s appear s to b ase his argument on the fact that some of the provisions in the temporary order constitute temporary injunctions enjoining both parties from engaging in specified conduct wh ile in possession of their ch ildren.

How ever, S ection s 6. 502 a nd 105.001(a) of the Famil y C ode expressly permit
trial court s to issue temporary i njunctions in divorce p roceedings a nd SAPCR s . See Tex. Fam. Code § § 6.502, 105.001(a)

. Perkins may not cir cumvent the legi slature ’ s express intention t o
pro hibit the inter locutory appeal of temporary orders rende red in divorce proceedings and
SAPCRs

— i ncluding temporary injunctions rendered therein

— by casting th e t emporary order as

a temporary injunction subject to interlocutory appeal under S ection 51.014 of the Civ il Pract ice and Remedies Code

. See Marley v. Marley , No. 0 1

- 05

- 00992

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

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that Civil Prac tice and Re medies Code S ection 51.014(4) did not control over prohibition in Fami ly Code3

S ection 6.50 7 of interlocutory appeals from t emporary orders in divo rce proceedings); Cook v. Cook , 886 S.W.2d 838, 839 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1994, no writ) (rejecting argument that
S ection 51.014(4) allowed interlocutory appeal from temporary orders iss ued under former version of S ectio n 6.50 7 ) ; see also Mason v. Mason , 256 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet. ) ( “ Texas courts of appeals have held that the specific Family Code provision limiting temporary order appeals control s ov er the general statute in the Civil Practice and Rem e dies Code permitting interlocutory appeals from temporary injunctions

. ” ).

Accordingly , we dismiss this appeal for want of juri sdiction.

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Sm ith Dismissed for Want of Jurisdict ion Filed: July 7, 2021