Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-26-00482-CV Elliot Abraham Sacks, Appellant v. Rachel Rupp, Appellee FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2020-0619D, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Elliot Abraham Sacks filed this pro se appeal of the trial court’s April 10, 2026 Temporary Orders in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship, challenging the temporary order requiring him to have only supervised possession and access to his child. However, this Court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from temporary orders rendered in a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). See Tex. Fam. Code § 105.001(e) (“Temporary orders rendered under this section are not subject to interlocutory appeal.”); Jones v. Jones, No. 03-25- 00062-CV, 2025 WL 1715730, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 20, 2025, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction parent’s appeal of temporary orders in SAPCR). The Clerk of this Court requested that Sacks file a response demonstrating our jurisdiction over this appeal. His response did not address our jurisdiction over the appealed temporary orders. 1 In general, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which there exists a final or appealable judgment or order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating general rule that appeal may be taken only from final judgment that disposes of all pending claims and parties in record unless statute provides for interlocutory appeal). The trial court’s April 10, 2026 temporary order is not final, and no statute provides for interlocutory appeal from that order. Because the order that Sacks challenges is not an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Jones, 2025 WL 1715730, at *1. __________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: July 16, 2026 1 Sacks’s response argues only that this case should be transferred because his child and the child’s mother reside in Bexar County and “[t]he Comal County Court is not the proper venue for this custody case.” 2