Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00262-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.G.R.,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-EM5-03919

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed. It shows that on February 28, 2012, 

Appellant Jennifer Elliot filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship. On March 20, 

2012, Appellee Enrique Ramirez Jr. filed a counterpetition to modify the parent-child 

relationship. On March 26, 2012, the trial court signed temporary orders. On January 10, 2013, 

Appellee Mary Pena, the paternal grandmother, filed a petition in intervention in a suit affecting 

the parent-child relationship, requesting contact with I.G.R. or in the alternative to be named a 

possessory conservator. She also filed a motion for additional temporary orders. On February 1, 

2013, the trial court signed “Additional Temporary Orders,” appointing Mary Pena a possessory 

conservator of I.G.R. On September 27, 2013, Appellant Jennifer Elliot filed a motion to strike 

or dismiss Pena’s petition in intervention. She also filed a motion to vacate or set aside the trial 

court’s Additional Temporary Orders under the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act. On October 

22, 2013, Appellee Mary Pena filed a first amended petition in intervention in a suit affecting the 

parent-child relationship. On November 6, 2013, Appellant Jennifer Elliot filed a motion for 

attorney’s fees and sanctions. She also filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, and on 

November 20, 2013, we issued an order conditionally granting the petition for writ of mandamus 

and ordering the trial court to vacate its Additional Temporary Orders. On November 21, 2013, 

the trial court vacated its Additional Temporary Orders. On November 27, 2013, Appellant 

Jennifer Elliot again filed a motion to dismiss petition in intervention, and a motion for sanction 

and attorney’s fees. 

On January 13, 2014, the trial court signed an “Order on Jennifer G. Elliot’s Motion to 

Strike or Dismiss Petition in Intervention in SAPCR and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney’s 

Fees.” The trial court found that Appellee Mary Pena did not have standing, granted Appellant 

Elliot’s motion to dismiss the petition in intervention, and struck Pena’s pleadings without 

prejudice. The trial court also denied Appellant Elliot’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees. 

On January 31, 2014, Appellant Elliot filed a “Motion for New Trial on Motion for Sanctions 

and Attorney’s Fees.” On March 7, 2014, the trial court signed an order denying the motion for 

new trial. On March 7, 2014, the trial court signed an “Amended Order on Jennifer G. Elliot’s 
Motion to Strike or Dismiss Petition in Intervention in SAPCR; and Motion for Sanctions and 

Attorney’s Fees.” In this amended order, the trial court again found that Mary Pena did not have 

standing to intervene, granted Elliot’s motion to dismiss, and struck Pena’s pleadings. The trial 

court also again denied Elliot’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees. On April 17, 2014, 

Appellant Jennifer Elliot filed a notice of appeal, stating that she intends to appeal from (1) the 

January 13, 2014 “Order on Jennifer G. Elliot’s Motion to Strike or Dismiss Petition in 

Intervention in SAPCR and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees”; and (2) the March 7, 

2013 “Amended Order on Jennifer G. Elliot’s Motion to Strike or Dismiss Petition in 

Intervention in SAPCR; and Motion for Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees.” 

Neither of these orders, however, appears to be final as Appellant’s Jennifer Elliot’s 

petition to modify the parent-child relationship has not been disposed of by any ruling. See 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that a judgment or 

order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending parties and claims 

before the court). The orders cited in Elliot’s notice of appeal appear to be interlocutory and not 

appealable. Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if a specific statute authorizes such an 

interlocutory appeal. For example, section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code lists circumstances under which a person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a 

district court, county court at law, or county court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. '

51.014. We cannot, however, find any statutory authority that allows a party to appeal from an 

interlocutory order that dismisses a petition in intervention or denies a motion for sanctions and 

attorney’s fees. We, therefore, ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by July 18, 2014 why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

We suspend all appellate deadlines pending our determination of whether we have 

jurisdiction over this appeal.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of July, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court