in the Interest of E.S.T. AKA E. T. a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2021 )

Opinion issued August 18, 2021.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-21-00088-CV
———————————
IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.T. AKA E.T. A Child
On Appeal from the 315th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2019-01176J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant S.C.S. (“Mother”) seeks to appeal the February 3, 2021 order
terminating her parental rights to her child, E.S.T. a/k/a E.T. The same order
terminated the parental rights of D.L. (“Father”). After Mother and Father filed their
notices of appeal, the trial court granted Father’s motion for new trial, rendering the
February 3, 2021 order interlocutory. This Court severed Father’s appeal into
appellate cause number 01-21-00197-CV and dismissed his appeal.
This Court does not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals of parental
termination decrees. See In re C.R.D., No. 03-19-00561-CV, 2019 WL 4281929, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing termination
appeal where order did not dispose of all parties and issues); In re E.A.F., No. 14-
13-00618-CV, 2013 WL 4945751, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 12,
2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); In re F.M.-T., No. 02-12-00522-CV, 2013 WL
1337789, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 4, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same);
see also In re G.A.A.-G., No. 14-13-00947-CV, 2013 WL 6046044, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 14, 2013, no pet.) (dismissing appeal after trial
court granted motion for new trial on issue of conservatorship and reinstated
temporary order naming Texas Department of Family & Protective Service as
child’s temporary managing conservator).
On May 4, 2021, the Texas Department of Family & Protective Services
(“Department”) filed an unopposed motion to abate Mother’s appeal until the trial
court adjudicated Father’s claims. The Department argued: “Because the trial
court’s timely grant of the father’s motion for new trial rendered the underlying
orders terminating the mother’s parental rights interlocutory, this Court no longer
has jurisdiction to hear the mother’s appeal.” On May 18, 2021, we issued an order
2
abating the appeal. As of this date, the parties have not filed a motion to reinstate
the appeal or otherwise informed this Court why we would now have jurisdiction
over this appeal.
Accordingly, we lift the abatement, reinstate the appeal on the Court’s active
docket, and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without
prejudice to the filing of a new appeal after the trial court signs a final judgment.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guerra.
3