Second Court of Appeals Dismisses Interlocutory Termination Appeal for Lack of Finality

In the Interest of A.C., a Child, 02-26-00036-CV, February 26, 2026.

On appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Second Court of Appeals dismissed a parental termination appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court’s order adjudicated only the mother’s rights while leaving the presumed father’s rights unadjudicated. Despite the inclusion of “Mother Hubbard” language and statutory warnings regarding accelerated appeals, the order remained interlocutory and unappealable because it did not dispose of all parties and claims in the litigation.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision highlights a critical jurisdictional trap for family law practitioners involved in multi-party litigation, particularly in CPS or private termination suits. Even when an order contains the mandatory “Warning: Appeal of Final Order” language required by Texas Family Code § 263.405, it does not achieve finality if the rights of an alleged or presumed father remain “recessed” or unaddressed. Practitioners must ensure that every named party is either adjudicated, dismissed, or severed into a separate cause to trigger the appellate clock; otherwise, any notice of appeal filed is premature and subject to dismissal, potentially causing significant delays in permanency for the child.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

In the underlying proceeding, the trial court held a hearing regarding the termination of S.M.H.’s (Mother) parental rights. While the trial court signed an “Interlocutory Order of Termination as to Respondent Mother,” the record reflected that a presumed father, Y.C., was also a named respondent in the suit. Father did not appear at the hearing, and the trial court specifically recessed the matter as to him without adjudicating his paternity or parental rights. The resulting order included standard “Mother Hubbard” language stating that all relief requested and not expressly granted was denied, and it included the statutory warnings for accelerated appeals under the Texas Family Code. Mother attempted to appeal the order pro se.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether an appellate court has jurisdiction over a parental-termination order that adjudicates the rights of only one parent while the claims against another named respondent remain pending and unadjudicated.

Rules Applied

The court applied the finality standard established in Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001), which provides that a judgment is final for purposes of appeal only if it actually disposes of all pending claims and parties or states with “unmistakable clarity” that it is intended to be a final judgment.

Additionally, the court looked to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014, noting that the legislature has not designated interlocutory parental-termination decrees as appealable orders. The court also observed that under Lehmann, the mere inclusion of “Mother Hubbard” language or a statement that the order is “final” or “appealable” does not, by itself, make an otherwise interlocutory order final.

Application

The court conducted a narrative analysis of the order’s text versus the record. While the order contained markers often associated with finality—such as the § 263.405 TFC warning and a Mother Hubbard clause—these were contradicted by the express recitation that the court “heard and rendered this case as to respondent [Mother] ONLY.” Because the father’s rights remained in limbo (specifically, “recessed”), the litigation had not reached a conclusion as to all parties.

The court noted that Mother was warned of this jurisdictional defect and failed to provide a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Without a severance order or a final judgment adjudicating Father’s status, the court determined the order was inherently interlocutory. Because no statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a partial termination, the court found it had no choice but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Holding

The court held that an order terminating the parental rights of only one parent is an interlocutory order, rather than a final judgment, when other respondents remain in the case with unadjudicated rights. Such an order is not appealable unless it disposes of all remaining parties and claims or contains the “unmistakable clarity” of finality required by Lehmann.

The court further held that the presence of “Mother Hubbard” language and statutory “Appeal of Final Order” warnings does not confer finality upon an order that, on its face, leaves a portion of the case pending. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal once a final judgment or severance is obtained.

Practical Application

For the family law litigator, this case serves as a warning against relying on “boilerplate” finality language in complex termination cases. If a presumed or alleged father is part of the suit but cannot be found or his rights are not being terminated simultaneously with the mother’s, the attorney must affirmatively move for a severance. Without a signed order of severance, the “final” order as to the mother is merely interlocutory, the 20-day accelerated appeal deadline does not technically begin to run, and the appellate court will be forced to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Checklists

Ensuring Finality in Multi-Respondent Terminations

• Identify All Parties: Verify every named respondent (legal, presumed, and alleged fathers) in the original petition and any interventions.
• Audit Adjudication: Confirm the order explicitly adjudicates the rights of every party or includes a clear dismissal of parties not being terminated.
• Check the “Mother Hubbard” Clause: Do not rely on “all relief not granted is denied” to cure a failure to address a named party.
• Draft Unmistakable Finality Language: Include the Lehmann phrase: “This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable.”
• Utilize Severance: If one parent’s rights must remain unadjudicated for a period, move for a severance of the terminated parent’s cause of action to create an appealable final judgment.

Responding to Jurisdictional Inquiries

• Review the Docket: Upon receipt of a jurisdictional ten-day letter from the Court of Appeals, immediately check the trial court docket for a subsequent final judgment.
• Correct the Record: If a final judgment was signed after the notice of appeal, ensure a supplemental clerk’s record is requested and filed.
• Seek Severance Post-Notice: If the order is truly interlocutory, ask the Court of Appeals to abate the appeal to allow the trial court to sign a severance order or a final judgment, rather than allowing the appeal to be dismissed.

Citation

In the Interest of A.C., a Child, No. 02-26-00036-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 26, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~dd03156b-c3a0-4a48-8d4c-9fbbc6012eeb~~