Amelia Schoolcraft and Robert Alan Schoolcraft v. Department of Family and Protective Services

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-05-00076-CV ______________________________ AMELIA SCHOOLCRAFT AND ROBERT ALAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Appellants V. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 68,825 Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross MEMORANDUM OPINION In April 2005, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a "Petition for Orders in Aid of Investigation of a Report of Child Abuse" regarding the two young Schoolcraft children. The underlying report of abuse stemmed from allegations of neglectful supervision on the part of the mother, Amelia Schoolcraft. As part of the underlying proceedings, the trial court ordered the parents, Amelia and Robert Schoolcraft, to allow the attorney ad litem access to the children for purposes of interviewing the older child. A disagreement developed between the parties April 11 when an assistant to the Schoolcrafts' counsel refused to allow the children to be interviewed by a forensic interviewer at the Children's Advocacy Center (CAC) rather than speaking directly with the attorney ad litem. In response to this failure to cooperate, the attorney ad litem moved the trial court to impose sanctions against the Schoolcrafts' attorney. A hearing on this motion was held May 13, 2005, and the trial court orally imposed unspecified sanctions against the Schoolcrafts' attorney. The trial court also orally dismissed the underlying proceeding and indicated that the order imposing sanctions was "a final judgment, as far as I’m concerned, and it is subject to appeal." On May 25, 2005, the Schoolcrafts filed their notice of appeal. On initial review, we noted that no written order was included in the record. Our preliminary correspondence with the parties indicated that no written order had been signed as of the filing of the notice of appeal. We requested a supplemental clerk's record to include the trial court's written order in this matter so we could determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. On November 18, 2005, we received and filed a supplemental clerk's record in this matter which included the trial court's written order signed November 7, 2005. On our second review of this record, we noted that the clerk's record demonstrated a probable defect in our jurisdiction over this appeal. The written order from which the Schoolcrafts attempt to appeal is one that only granted the attorney ad litem's motion for sanctions against the Schoolcrafts' attorney for obstructing the ad litem's attempt to have one of the Schoolcraft children interviewed at the CAC. The written order does not address the disposition of the underlying case. This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments or certain specified interlocutory orders. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Onstad v. Wright, 54 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). Generally, an order imposing monetary sanctions is reviewed on appeal from the final judgment in the case. See Onstad, 54 S.W.3d at 804; In re Onstad, 20 S.W.3d 731, 733 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, orig. proceeding). Our review of the record on appeal reveals no final judgment in this case. The trial court's order imposing sanctions fails to dispose of all issues in the case pending below. Further, this interlocutory order is not one over which we are granted the authority to hear. See Onstad, 54 S.W.3d at 803. On November 22, 2005, pursuant to Rule 42.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we notified all parties of this jurisdictional defect and directed the parties to show the Court, by December 2, 2005, grounds for continuing this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We warned the parties that, if no grounds were shown by December 2, the case would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). That deadline has passed, and the Court has not received any correspondence from any party involved in this appeal. Therefore, we conclude, based on our review of this record, that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, as authorized by Rule 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Donald R. Ross Justice Date Submitted: December 21, 2005 Date Decided: December 22, 2005