# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 3, 2014

N o. 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 paterna l 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 Februa ry 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 relationshi p. 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 m andamus 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 inter vention, 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 c ourt 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 atto rney’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’sMotion 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, grant e d 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

Jan uary 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, appear s to be final as Appellant’s Jennifer Elliot’s petition to modify the parent

- child relationship has not been disposed of by any rul ing. 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 appea l 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 T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

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

inter locutory 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, 20 14 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of j urisdiction.

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