Court Opinion

ID: 9900018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 07:12:10.255513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.519461
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 16, 2023

                                        In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    __________

                               No. 11-23-00203-CV
                                   __________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.I.C., M.E.C., AND M.A.C., CHILDREN

                     On Appeal from the 446th District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. E-19-03-0453-FM

                      MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON
      Appellant, the mother of the children, has filed a pro se notice of appeal from
an associate judge’s order relating to child support. Following the associate judge’s
order, the father of the children timely filed a request for a de novo hearing in the
district court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 201.015 (West Supp. 2023).
      We notified the mother by letter that, if the request for a de novo hearing was
timely filed, it did not appear that we had jurisdiction in this matter because the order
from which she attempts to appeal is not a final, appealable order. See id.; In re C.R.-
A.A., No. 04-16-00587-CV, 2016 WL 6238237, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
Oct. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). In the letter, we requested that the parties file a
response advising if they agree that the request for a hearing was timely filed and
provide this court with the date the hearing is scheduled, and we informed the mother
that this appeal may be dismissed.
      The mother has not responded. The father responded and confirmed that he
timely filed a request for a de novo hearing before the district court, and that a
hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2023. In his response, the father stated that
it is “our understanding [that] both parties intended on requesting a de novo hearing
rather than an appeal to this Court.” The father further informed this court that the
hearing on November 16 also relates to his request for temporary orders on a petition
to modify the parent-child relationship.
      When a request for a de novo hearing is timely filed, an associate judge’s order
or recommendation is not a final, appealable order. See In re C.R.-A.A., 2016
WL 6238237, at *1; Balachandrachari v. Tang, No. 05-15-00889-CV, 2016
WL 3971323, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 22, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also
In re W.M.C., No. 11-11-00266-CV, 2011 WL 5999374, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland
Dec. 1, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing FAM. § 201.015). Unless specifically
authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M
Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con
Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Because the order from which Appellant
now attempts to appeal is not a final, appealable order, we have no jurisdiction to
consider this appeal and must dismiss it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
      Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                               W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
November 16, 2023                              JUSTICE
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           2