Full Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00663-CV IN THE INTEREST OF C.F.S., a Child From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-CI-07329 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 26, 2026 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION In this case, appellant purports to appeal the trial court’s “judgment or order” “signed on” September 15, 2025. In the appellant’s brief, appellant acknowledged that “[a]s of December 23, 2025,” there is “no signed written order” pertaining to an initial June 25, 2025 ruling or the September 15, 2025 ruling on his motion to modify the June 25, 2025 ruling. The clerk’s record in this case was filed on December 10, 2025. A review of the clerk’s record confirmed appellant’s statements in the appellant’s brief: there is no signed, written order or judgment in the clerk’s record. The docket entry for June 25, 2025 and the September 15, 2025 refer to “Judge’s notes.” 04-25-00663-CV In order for this court to have jurisdiction, an appealable order or judgment must be written and signed by the trial court. In re M.R.G., No. 04-17-00623-CV, 2017 WL 4938422, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). “An oral ruling, not reduced to writing and signed by the trial court, is not a final or otherwise appealable judgment or order.” Id.; see TEX. R. APP. 26.1 (appellate timetable runs from date judgment or order signed); Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam). “A trial court’s oral pronouncement and docket entry are not an acceptable substitute for a written order.” Emerald Oaks Hotel/Conf. Ctr., Inc. v. Zardenetta, 776 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). It therefore appeared to the court the “order or judgment” appellant desired to appeal was not appealable. We ordered appellant to show cause in writing to this court no later than August 17, 2026 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We admonished appellant that if he failed to file a satisfactory response by the date ordered, the appeal would be dismissed. On August 3, 2026, appellant filed a response explaining he asked the trial court to file the June 25, 2025 and September 15, 2025 orders. But no supplemental clerk’s record containing any such orders has been filed. Appellant also raised a new order for appeal filed more than five months after the notice of appeal: an order entitled “Modified Temporary Orders in Suit to Modify Parent/Child Relationship.” He claimed that order wrongfully required him to participate in Soberlink monitoring, as a criminal court order removed his interlock device. However, such temporary orders—by statute—are not appealable. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 105.001(e) (“Temporary orders rendered under this section are not subject to interlocutory appeal.”); see, e.g., In re B.V., No. 04- -2- 04-25-00663-CV 21-00086-CV, 2021 WL 2814896, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM -3-