In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-21-00141-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.P., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-668291-19

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se Appellant S.V. (Mother) attempts to appeal from unspecified interlocutory orders in this Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) that remains pending in the trial court. No final judgment has issued.1 Based on our review of her notice of appeal and the limited record before us, we believe the orders Mother challenges are default temporary orders and an “Order for Supervised Visitation at the Visitation Center.” On August 23, 2021, we notified the parties of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because no challenged order appears to be a final judgment or an appealable, interlocutory order.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We informed the parties that we could dismiss this appeal absent a timely response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We received no response.

We may consider appeals only from final judgments or from interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by the Texas Legislature. See Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex. Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. 2020). Temporary orders entered in a SAPCR are not appealable, interlocutory orders. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 105.001(e); Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g); In re K.S., No. 02-20-00409-CV, 2021 WL 126596, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Mother’s appeal of the final protective order entered against her on May 4, 2021, is dismissed today in a separate memorandum opinion. S.V. v. A.P., No. 02-21- 00142-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 4, 2021, no pet. h.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

Fort Worth Jan. 14, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Nor are interlocutory orders modifying visitation. In re B.V., No. 04-21-00086-CV, 2021 WL 2814896, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 7, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Salinas v. Melton, No. 01-15-00702-CV, 2016 WL 3661845, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 7, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

Thus, we do not have jurisdiction over Mother’s attempted appeal, and we dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 43.2(f).

Per Curiam Delivered: November 4, 2021