A.C. v. S.G.A.
Docket 04-25-00761-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 04-25-00761-CV
Appeal from denial of an application for a protective order and a subsequent trial-court order modifying visitation in a family-law context
Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed appellant A.C.'s attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A.C., proceeding pro se, filed an application for a protective order and appealed after the trial court orally denied relief; the court later signed an order denying a temporary protective order and modifying visitation. Because A.C. acknowledged that related proceedings (a foreign custody/support registration from Ohio and a suit affecting the parent-child relationship) remain pending, the appellate court concluded the order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable under Texas law, and A.C. did not respond to a show-cause order.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appealed order denying a protective order and modifying visitation was a final, appealable judgment
- Whether an interlocutory protective-order or visitation ruling in a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship can be immediately appealed
Court's Reasoning
Texas appellate courts may review only final judgments unless a statute authorizes interlocutory appeals. The record showed related proceedings (a registration of a foreign custody/support order and an ongoing suit affecting the parent-child relationship) remained pending, so the denial of the protective order and the visitation modifications were interlocutory. Because no statute authorized immediate appeal of those interlocutory rulings and the appellant did not respond to the court's order to show cause, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Authorities Cited
- McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC539 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2018)
- TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 81.009(c)
- In re A.J.F.No. 05-06-01514-CV, 2007 WL 465950 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 14, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Parties
- Appellant
- A.C.
- Appellee
- S.G.A.
- Judge
- Antonia Arteaga
Key Dates
- Application filed
- 2025-10-03
- Hearing
- 2025-11-21
- Notice of appeal filed
- 2025-11-25
- Trial court order signed
- 2025-12-04
- Appellate decision filed
- 2026-04-15
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult an attorney experienced in family law
Get advice about whether any statutory interlocutory appeal exists or how to preserve issues for appeal once a final order is entered in the pending parent-child proceedings.
- 2
Proceed in the pending trial-court actions
Continue litigating in the registration/SAPCR matters in the trial court because appellate jurisdiction is not available until a final order is entered.
- 3
Respond to appellate orders in future
If ordered by the appellate court, file timely responses to show-cause or jurisdictional briefing to avoid dismissal for failure to respond.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the order appealed was not a final judgment and no law authorized an immediate appeal.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Appellant A.C. is affected because her appeal was dismissed; the underlying trial-court orders remain in effect and must be addressed in the pending family proceedings.
- What happens next in the case?
- The trial-court proceedings continue in the pending actions; A.C. may seek review only when a final, appealable order is entered or if a statute permits an interlocutory appeal.
- Can A.C. still appeal?
- Not from the interlocutory orders at this time; she can appeal after a final appealable order in the pending parent-child or related proceedings, or pursue any statutory interlocutory remedy if available.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00761-CV
A.C.,
Appellant
v.
S.G.A.,
Appellee
From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2025-CI-23409
Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 15, 2026
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
On October 3, 2025, appellant A.C., proceeding pro se, filed an application for protective
order. On November 21, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on A.C.’s application. On November
25, 2025, A.C. filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s oral denial of her application for a
protective order. On December 4, 2025, the trial court signed an order denying A.C. a temporary
protective order and modifying visitation orders. Appellant ostensibly attempts to appeal from
this order.
04-25-00761-CV
The clerk’s record before us indicates that, according to A.C., there is a pending
“Registration of Foreign Custody/Support Order from Lucas County, Ohio” in the trial court. A.C
also contends that there is a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) that has
been stayed. Notwithstanding these pending actions, A.C. instituted the underlying separate action
by filing an application for protective order.
“Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only to
review final judgments.” McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex.
2018). Here, by A.C.’s pleaded assertions, the “Registration of Foreign Custody/Support Order
from Lucas County, Ohio” and SAPCR actions remain pending. The order denying A.C.’s
application for a protective order is an interlocutory order, for which no statute authorizes an
immediate appeal. Cf. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 81.009(c) (“A protective order rendered against a
party in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship may not be appealed until the time an order
providing for support of the child or possession of or access to the child becomes a final, appealable
order.”); In re A.J.F., No. 05-06-01514-CV, 2007 WL 465950, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 14,
2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction attempted appeal of
protective order rendered in still-pending SAPCR). Relatedly, the provisions in the December 4,
2025 order modifying visitation constitute a non-appealable interlocutory order in, according to
A.C., a pending SAPCR. In re B.V., No. 04-21-00086-CV, 2021 WL 2814896, at *2 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio Jul. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (noting that the part of the appealed
order restricting visitation and possession of the children modified prior temporary orders in the
case, and therefore, constituted a non-appealable interlocutory order).
Based on A.C.’s representations in documents in the clerk’s record, it appeared that the
December 4, 2025 order was neither a final, appealable judgment, nor an interlocutory order from
-2-
04-25-00761-CV
which an appeal was authorized by statute. Therefore, we ordered A.C. to show cause in writing
why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). A.C.
did not respond to our order. For these reasons, we do not have jurisdiction over A.C.’s attempted
appeal, and we dismiss her appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id.
PER CURIAM
-3-