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 PRESIDING

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 

the underlying divorce proceeding and suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR).

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only when expressly 

permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001).

Texas courts strictly construe statutes authorizing interlocutory appeals. America Online, Inc. v. 

Williams, 958 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.).

The Texas Family Code specifically precludes the interlocutory appeal of 

temporary orders, except those appointing a receiver.

1

 See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 6.507 (“An order 

under this subchapter [applying to temporary orders rendered in divorce suits], except an order 

1 Mandamus, however, may be an appropriate remedy when 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. proceeding).
2

appointing a receiver, is not subject to interlocutory appeal.”), 105.001(e) (“Temporary orders 

rendered under this section [applying to SAPCRs] are not subject to interlocutory appeal.”); 

Dancy v. Daggett, 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 to interlocutory appeal.”). Because 

it appeared to this Court that Perkins 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 want of jurisdiction 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 court’s temporary order as a “temporary injunction” properly appealable under the Civil 

Practice and Remedies 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 . . . as provided by Chapter 65 . . . .”). Perkins appears to base 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 while in possession of their children.

However, Sections 6.502 and 105.001(a) of the Family Code expressly permit

trial courts to issue temporary injunctions in divorce proceedings and SAPCRs. See Tex. Fam. 

Code §§ 6.502, 105.001(a). Perkins may not circumvent the legislature’s express intention to 

prohibit the interlocutory appeal of temporary orders rendered in divorce proceedings and

SAPCRs—including temporary injunctions rendered therein—by casting the temporary order as 

a temporary injunction subject to interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code. See Marley v. Marley, No. 01-05-00992-CV, 2006 WL 3094325, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code Section 51.014(4) did not control over prohibition in Family Code 
3

Section 6.507 of interlocutory appeals from temporary orders in divorce proceedings); Cook v. 

Cook, 886 S.W.2d 838, 839 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, no writ) (rejecting argument that 

Section 51.014(4) allowed interlocutory appeal from temporary orders issued under former 

version of Section 6.507); 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 controls over the general statute in the Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code permitting interlocutory appeals from temporary injunctions.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 7, 2021