Opinion issued June 9, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-00911-CV

———————————

BRIDGETTE HUNTER, Appellant

V.

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND protective Services, Appellee

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          In this suit affecting the parent child relationship, appellant, Bridgette Hunter, has filed a notice of appeal regarding the “Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearing” signed by the trial court on September 16, 2010.  The order, inter alia, appoints the Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) as the temporary managing conservator of appellant’s minor child, J.H.  

A special clerk’s record in this appeal was filed on April 25, 2011.  According to the record, no final judgment has been rendered in the termination suit.  The Department has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that this Court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from the temporary order.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute.  Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).  No statute grants an interlocutory appeal of the temporary order at issue here.  To the contrary, the Texas Family Code specifically precludes the interlocutory appeal of temporary orders in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e) (Vernon 2006); see also In the Interest of N.J.G., 980 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.).  We hold that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal.  See In the Interest of R.S, No. 14-08-00598-CV, 2008 WL 4308767, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 28, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of temporary order for child protection). 

Accordingly, we grant the Department’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley.