Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

In the Interest of A.S. — Appeal from scheduling order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
In the Interest of A.S., a Child
Court
Texas Second Court of Appeals
Judge
Dana Womack (Greg Abbott, 2019)
Date Decided
August 6, 2026
Docket No.
02-26-00396-CV
Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction; Scheduling Orders; Family Law
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

P.J.S., representing himself, attempted to appeal a “Pretrial Docket Control Scheduling Order With Notice of Proceeding” entered by the 360th District Court in Tarrant County in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship.

The court of appeals notified P.J.S. that it appeared to lack jurisdiction because the scheduling order was neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. P.J.S. responded, but his response did not establish a basis for continuing the appeal. As the court understood his filings, P.J.S. maintained that submitting to the trial court’s jurisdiction violated his religion and that the dispute should be handled by his church in a religious tribunal.

The Court’s Holding

The Texas Second Court of Appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. Appeals generally may be taken only from final judgments or interlocutory orders for which a statute authorizes an immediate appeal, and the pretrial scheduling order satisfied neither category.

Because P.J.S. did not identify a jurisdictional ground permitting review, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) and 43.2(f). The court did not decide the merits of P.J.S.’s religious-jurisdiction contention.

Key Takeaways

  • A routine pretrial scheduling order is not a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.
  • An appellant must establish a valid basis for appellate jurisdiction when the court questions whether the challenged order is immediately appealable.
  • The dismissal was jurisdictional and did not resolve the merits of the underlying parent–child dispute or P.J.S.’s religious objection.

Why It Matters

The opinion reinforces the limited scope of interlocutory appellate review in Texas. Litigants ordinarily cannot obtain immediate review of docket-control and scheduling decisions merely by filing a notice of appeal.

For practitioners in family-law proceedings, the decision underscores the need to identify a final judgment or specific statutory authorization before pursuing an appeal from a pretrial order.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top