In the Interest of M. O. W. v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00705-CV

In the Interest of M. O. W.

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-FM-24-008870, THE HONORABLE MARY ANN MORTON, JUDGE
PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Oliver Densil Watts filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

September 11, 2025 order “denying his Special Appearance and Motion to Dismiss” and stated

the appeal is taken “pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(7) and Tex. R. App. P.

28.1.”1 The underlying suit arises from a Uniform Interstate Family Support Act Petition filed

by the Attorney General of Texas pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 159.

Upon initial review, the Clerk of this Court sent Watts a letter informing him that

this Court appears to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the September 11, 2025 order in

the clerk’s record does not appear to be a final or appealable judgment or order, and our

jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order.

See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195

(Tex. 2001) (explaining that appeal generally may only be taken from final judgment that

1
Watts describes the order as the “September 10, 2025” order denying his special
appearance and motion to dismiss, but the trial court signed the order on September 11, 2025.
disposes of all pending parties and claims in record unless statute provides for interlocutory

appeal). The Court explained that the statute upon which Watts relies in this case expressly

precludes an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a defendant’s special appearance in a suit

brought under the Family Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(7) (permitting

interlocutory appeal from trial court’s order granting or denying “the special appearance of a

defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except in a suit brought under the

Family Code” (emphasis added)).

The Clerk requested a response from Watts explaining any basis that exists for

this Court’s jurisdiction. Watts filed a response and a supplemental response. In his responses,

in addition to arguing the merits of his special appearance, he contends that the trial court’s

September 11, 2025 order is reviewable on appeal because “not every matter located within the

Family Code qualifies as a ‘suit brought under’ it.” He argues that Uniform Interstate Family

Support Act actions “are statutory civil enforcement proceedings between states, governed

procedurally by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure rather than by the Title 5 family-relations

framework.” Watts cites cases that he argues support this proposition or that he asserts are

examples of cases where Texas courts have entertained interlocutory appeals from denials of

special appearances in family-related cases. Some of these cases appear to be AI

hallucinations—they do not exist. The remaining ones do not support the propositions of law

that he asserts they do. We have found no case allowing an interlocutory appeal from a trial

court’s order denying a special appearance in a Uniform Interstate Family Support Act case or

any other case brought under the Family Code.

The trial court’s September 11, 2025 order is neither a final, appealable order nor

an appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; Stary v. DeBord,

2
967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate

appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.”); see

also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014§ 51.014(a)(7) (expressly excluding suits brought

under Family Code from category of permissible interlocutory appeals from trial court’s order

granting or denying defendant’s special appearance).

Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________
Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 7, 2025

3