Court Opinion

ID: 9406195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 07:09:41.710164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.781324
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                                __________________

                                NO. 09-23-00137-CV
                                __________________

                  IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., J.C., AND J.C.

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 22-11-15814-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On May 5, 2023, Appellant D.C. filed a notice of appeal regarding the trial

court’s denial of her motion to dismiss a child protection suit. After D.C. filed her

appeal, the Court’s Clerk sent D.C. a notice informing her that it did not appear she

was attempting to bring an appeal from a judgment or from an appealable order. We

asked D.C. to identify the statute or rule authorizing her appeal. Even though D.C.

filed responses to the Court’s letter, her responses fail to identify a final judgment or

                                           1
a written order from which an appeal is authorized by law. 1 Accordingly, we dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 28, 2023
Opinion Delivered June 29, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

      1
        D.C. referred the Court to “H.B. 567.” Assuming she refers to House Bill
567 of the 87th Legislature, the Legislature amended several sections of the Family
Code but did not add a right to immediate appeal of a trial court’s oral denial of a
motion to dismiss a child protection case. See generally Act of April 28, 2021, 87th
Leg., R.S., §§ 1-16.
                                          2