Court Opinion

ID: 3068395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-15 23:52:24.316185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:20.914814
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-15-00115-CV
                           ____________________

                          IN THE INTEREST OF L.G.

_______________________________________________________             ______________

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 12-11-12087 CV
________________________________________________________             _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      E.W., the father of L.G., a minor child, filed a notice of appeal from the trial

court’s order of March 31, 2015, which approved L.G.’s removal from his

placement in Arizona under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children

and approved L.G.’s placement by the Texas Department of Family and Protective

Services in Texas. See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 162.102 (West 2014) (the

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, or “ICPC”). At all times relevant

to this appeal, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has been

the child’s permanent managing conservator. In general, incidental orders signed

                                          1
after the Department has been appointed as a child’s permanent managing

conservator are not appealable as final orders. See In re H.M.C., No. 10-14-00059-

CV, 2014 WL 2463079, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem.

op.); In re A.J., No. 02-11-00442-CV, 2012 WL 171262, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth Jan. 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (permanency hearing orders). We notified

the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless our jurisdiction over the

appeal could be established. After reviewing the parties’ responses, the clerk’s

record, and the reporter’s record of the hearing on the Department’s motion, we

conclude that the trial court’s March 31, 2015 order is not a final order from which

an appeal is authorized. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                             ________________________________
                                                      HOLLIS HORTON
                                                          Justice

Submitted on May 20, 2015
Opinion Delivered May 21, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                         2