In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00412-CV

In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children

On appeal from the
County Court at Law No. 1 of Ellis County, Texas
Judge James S. Chapman, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 118644CCL

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Mother of C.P.C. and P.G.C., filed an accelerated appeal of a

temporary order that granted the Texas Department of Family and Protective

Services temporary managing conservatorship of C.P.C. and P.G.C. By letter

from the Clerk of this Court dated November 10, 2025, Appellant was notified

that this Court would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was filed.

In response, Appellant filed a motion for this Court to construe the notice

of accelerated appeal as either a petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ of

habeas corpus. Appellant’s motion is denied. This Court has already denied a

petition for a writ of mandamus in a separate opinion and judgment in Cause

No. 10-25-00386-CV on October 31, 2025, that asserted the same claims.
It is well established that temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-

child relationship cannot be challenged on appeal. See TEX. FAM. CODE §

105.001(e); see, e.g., In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 248-49 & n.8 (Tex. 2013)

(citing Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). A

trial court's decision to allow the department to maintain custody of a child

following an adversary hearing is reviewable, if at all, through a petition for

writ of mandamus, and Appellant has previously sought and been denied that

relief in this Court. In re Chenette, No. 10-25-00386-CV, 2025 2025 WL

3055127, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8470 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 31, 2025, no pet.

h.) (mem. op.); see also In re J.D.S., 494 S.W.3d 387, 389 (Tex. App.—Waco

2015, no pet.) (citing In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d

613, 614 (Tex. 2008)). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Appellant’s pending motions are dismissed as moot.

LEE HARRIS
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 21, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Appeal dismissed;
Motions denied
CV06

In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children Page 2

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00412-CV

In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children

On appeal from the
County Court at Law No. 1 of Ellis County, Texas
Judge James S. Chapman, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 118644CCL

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Mother of C.P.C. and P.G.C., filed an accelerated appeal of a

temporary order that granted the Texas Department of Family and Protective

Services temporary managing conservatorship of C.P.C. and P.G.C. By letter

from the Clerk of this Court dated November 10, 2025, Appellant was notified

that this Court would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was filed.

In response, Appellant filed a motion for this Court to construe the notice

of accelerated appeal as either a petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ of

habeas corpus. Appellant’s motion is denied. This Court has already denied a

petition for a writ of mandamus in a separate opinion and judgment in Cause

No. 10-25-00386-CV on October 31, 2025, that asserted the same claims.
It is well established that temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-

child relationship cannot be challenged on appeal. See TEX. FAM. CODE §

105.001(e); see, e.g., In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239, 248-49 & n.8 (Tex. 2013)

(citing Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). A

trial court's decision to allow the department to maintain custody of a child

following an adversary hearing is reviewable, if at all, through a petition for

writ of mandamus, and Appellant has previously sought and been denied that

relief in this Court. In re Chenette, No. 10-25-00386-CV, 2025 2025 WL

3055127, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8470 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 31, 2025, no pet.

h.) (mem. op.); see also In re J.D.S., 494 S.W.3d 387, 389 (Tex. App.—Waco

2015, no pet.) (citing In re Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 255 S.W.3d

613, 614 (Tex. 2008)). Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. Appellant’s pending motions are dismissed as moot.

LEE HARRIS
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 21, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Appeal dismissed;
Motions denied
CV06

In the Interest of C.P.C. and P.G.C., Children Page 2