Background
Elliot Abraham Sacks, proceeding pro se, appealed the trial court’s April 10, 2026 temporary orders in a pending suit to modify the parent-child relationship. He challenged the requirement that his possession of and access to his child be supervised.
The appellate clerk asked Sacks to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction. His response did not address whether the temporary orders were appealable; instead, he argued that the case should be transferred because the child and the child’s mother lived in Bexar County and Comal County was not the proper venue.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction because the challenged temporary order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order. Texas Family Code Section 105.001(e) expressly provides that temporary orders rendered under that section are not subject to interlocutory appeal.
Because no statute authorized an interlocutory appeal and the order did not dispose of the pending suit, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). The court did not decide Sacks’s challenge to supervised possession or his venue argument.
Key Takeaways
- Temporary orders entered in a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship generally cannot be challenged through an interlocutory appeal.
- An appellate court ordinarily has jurisdiction only over a final judgment or an interlocutory order made appealable by statute.
- A response addressing venue does not establish appellate jurisdiction over a nonappealable temporary order.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the jurisdictional barrier to direct appeals from temporary SAPCR orders, including orders restricting a parent to supervised possession and access. A party’s disagreement with the substance of such an order does not make it immediately appealable.
Family-law practitioners should assess appealability before filing and respond directly when an appellate court requests a jurisdictional showing. Arguments about venue or the merits cannot substitute for a statutory basis for interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.