in the Interest of A.Y., D.Y., R.Y., S.Y., S.Y., and Z.Y., Minor Children

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00069-CV ___________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.Y., D.Y., R.Y., S.Y., S.Y., AND Z.Y., MINOR CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 325th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 325-675205-20

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant M.Y. (Father), proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an “Order Denying Motion to Recuse” signed by the presiding judge of the Eighth Administrative Judicial Region. We notified Father of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the “Order Denying Motion to Recuse” is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We informed Father that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Ten days have passed, and we have received no response.

“An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only . . . on appeal from the final judgment.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). The trial-court clerk has confirmed that there is no final judgment in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A); Thayer v. Thayer, Nos. 02-14-00025-CV, 02-14-00026-CV, 2014 WL 982433, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 13, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (explaining that an order denying a recusal motion is not an appealable interlocutory order and may be reviewed only “on appeal from the final judgment” (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A))).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Delivered: May 6, 2021