Court Opinion

ID: 3074411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:01:52.798342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:03.362195
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-15-00053-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

            IN THE INTEREST OF H. M. C. S., A CHILD
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 24th District Court
                    of DeWitt County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellants, James W. Sanders and Lori Sanders, attempted to perfect an appeal

from an order issued by the 24th District Court in cause no. 14-10-23,209. Documents

before the Court indicate this is a suit affecting parent-child relationship and a status

hearing order was issued by the trial court on January 6, 2015.

       Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no

final, appealable judgment.     On February 4, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be
done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was

not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, the appeal would be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellants have responded stating the reasons for

appeal are that the home study has many non-truths and their grandchild should remain

with them.

      In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review

final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har-

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).           The Court, having considered the

documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                                     PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 26th
day of February, 2015.

                                            2