Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-26-00418-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF L.Q.-W., L.W., AND L.W., CHILDREN On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CIV-25-0257 Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant D.B.,1 proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the trial court’s post- termination order granting the Department of Family and Protective Services’ motion to strike her petition in intervention, denying her petition, and denying her motion for reconsideration. However, it does not appear that the trial court has entered a final, appealable order regarding post-termination conservatorship or an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a), 27.1(a); Kenneth D. Eichner, P.C. v. Dominguez, 623 S.W.3d 358, 360 (Tex. 2021); In re A.B.K., No. 05-21-00128-CV, 2021 WL 1997059, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 19, 2021, no pet.). Further, Appellant does not appear to be challenging the trial court’s March 26, 2026 order of termination, and any appeal of that order would be untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). Without a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, and we must dismiss it. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195, 200. We use Appellant’s initials to protect the identities of the children. See Tex. 1 Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 2 We sent Appellant a letter informing her that we had received a copy of her notice of appeal and notifying her of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We warned Appellant that this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.2 Because there is no final judgment or order subject to appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195, 200. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); In re J.J., No. 02-25-00557-CV, 2025 WL 3248099, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2025, no pet.). Per Curiam Delivered: August 13, 2026 2 In her response, Appellant requests that, in the alternative, we construe her appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the response and other filings in this appeal do not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, we decline to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7(a); Belmont v. Belmont, No. 02-25- 00388-CV, 2025 WL 2492351, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2025, no pet.). 3