Court Opinion

ID: 9718726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:31:58.066648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:01.975648
License: Public Domain

YÁÑEZ, J.,
dissenting.
Because I am convinced we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, I respectfully dissent.
Protective orders are not final judgments. See Normand v. Fox, 940 S.W.2d 401, 402 (Tex.App.—Waco 1997, no writ); but see James v. Hubbard, 985 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). In Normand, the appellate court held because the trial court retains the power to modify a protective order by removing items or by including items not previously contained in the order, the finality of the order is “clouded.” Id.;' Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 71.14 (Vernon 1996). Normand acknowledges that other “motions” to modify in the family law arena, i.e., motions to *168modify support or conservatorship, have been specifically designated by the legislature as “new suits.” See Normand, 940 S.W.2d . at 403. The motion to modify protective order provided for under section 71.14 enjoys no such special designation. The ongoing power and ability of the trial court to revise the protective order at any time before it expires, means that upon signing the protective order, the trial court has not finally disposed of all the issues and parties.
Because the protective order is not a final judgment, it is an interlocutory order. This Court may only entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order if explicitly authorized by the legislature. The legislature has declined to grant us this authority. See Hubbard, 985 S.W.2d at 519 (Stone dissenting); Normand, 940 S.W.2d at 402-03.
There are sound reasons for the trial court to maintain this ongoing modification power over the issues and the parties. The nature of a protective order and the ills it seeks to eradicate require the relief it provides to be tailored and re-tailored to suit unique and volatile circumstances. I am also persuaded that any trial court errors are better corrected by the more expedient mechanism offered via mandamus.
Because we lack jurisdiction, I would refrain from addressing the merits of this appeal, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.