Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00888-CV Sam Jackson GALYON, Appellant v. Andrea NOBLE, Bruce Noble and Lauren Nicole Pray, Appellees From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CI13767 Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 29, 2025 PETITION FOR PERMISSIVE APPEAL DENIED; DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Galyon seeks permission to bring a permissive interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s determination that the fit parent presumption applies but has been rebutted. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 51.014(d), (f). In this case, Galyon—who has always maintained managing conservatorship of his child—seeks to assert the fit parent presumption in his attempt to modify a 2017 agreed order in which he granted the child’s grandparents managing conservatorship and 04-24-00888-CV

the exclusive right to designate the child’s residence. We refuse to accept this permissive interlocutory appeal and dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Under Subsection 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a trial court may, by written order, permit an interlocutory appeal of an otherwise not appealable order if: (1) there is a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (2) an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 168; TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. However, “Subsection (d) does not apply to an action brought under the Family Code.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d-1); see, e.g., Hernandez v. Department of Family & Protective Servs., 392 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.); White v. Rogers, No. 03-19-00462-CV, 2019 WL 3331631, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 25, 2019, no pet.); In re S.R.B., No. 02-13-00249-CV, 2013 WL 5175578, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 12, 2013, no pet.); see also S.C. v. M.B., 650 S.W.3d 428, 436 n.6 (Tex. 2022).

Because this action was brought under the Family Code, Galyon’s permissive interlocutory appeal is not permitted. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d-1). We therefore dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

-2-