Fourth Court of Appeals Dismisses Appeal of Protective Order Denial and Visitation Modification as Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders

A.C. v. S.G.A., 04-25-00761-CV, April 15, 2026.

On appeal from 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fourth Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction to review an order denying a protective order application and modifying visitation where a related SAPCR and foreign custody/support order registration remained pending. In that procedural posture, both rulings were interlocutory, and no statute authorized an immediate appeal.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family law litigators, this opinion is a clean reminder that appellate timing in protective-order and access litigation is driven by the procedural posture of the underlying family case, not by the practical urgency of the relief sought. When possession, access, or support issues remain embedded in a pending SAPCR, rulings denying protection or adjusting visitation may be unappealable temporary or interlocutory orders, which has direct consequences in divorce cases involving children, post-decree modification proceedings, interstate custody disputes, and any matter in which protective-order relief is pursued alongside ongoing conservatorship or access litigation.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The appellant, proceeding pro se, filed an application for protective order on October 3, 2025. After a hearing, she filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s oral denial of that application. The trial court later signed a written order on December 4, 2025 denying a temporary protective order and modifying visitation orders.

The clerk’s record reflected the appellant’s own representations that two related matters were still pending in the trial court: a registration of a foreign custody/support order from Lucas County, Ohio, and a SAPCR that had been stayed. Despite those pending proceedings, the protective-order request was filed as a separate action. The appellate court treated those pending family-law proceedings as dispositive for jurisdictional purposes because they meant the December 4 order did not finally dispose of all claims and parties and instead operated within an ongoing family-law framework.

Issues Decided

• Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying an application for protective order when a related SAPCR and foreign custody/support order registration remained pending.
• Whether the portion of the same order modifying visitation was immediately appealable.
• Whether any statute authorized interlocutory review of either ruling in this procedural setting.

Rules Applied

Texas appellate courts generally have jurisdiction only over final judgments unless a statute expressly authorizes an interlocutory appeal. The court cited McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018), for that baseline finality principle.

The court also relied on Texas Family Code section 81.009(c), which provides that a protective order rendered against a party in a SAPCR may not be appealed until the order providing for child support, possession, or access becomes a final, appealable order. Although the order here denied protective relief rather than granting it, the court used section 81.009(c) and related authority to confirm that protective-order rulings tied to an ongoing SAPCR are not immediately appealable.

The court further cited In re A.J.F., No. 05-06-01514-CV, 2007 WL 465950, at 1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 14, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.), which dismissed an attempted appeal from a protective order rendered in a still-pending SAPCR, and In re B.V., No. 04-21-00086-CV, 2021 WL 2814896, at 2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.), which recognized that an order restricting visitation and possession by modifying prior temporary orders in a pending SAPCR is itself a non-appealable interlocutory order.

Finally, the court proceeded under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a), which permits dismissal where the appellate court lacks jurisdiction after notice and an opportunity to respond.

Application

The court’s analysis was straightforward and procedural. It began with the appellant’s own description of the underlying litigation landscape: a still-pending registration proceeding involving an Ohio custody/support order and a still-pending SAPCR. Once those representations were accepted, the December 4 order could not be treated as a final judgment because it did not conclude the family-law controversy between the parties. Instead, it functioned as an interim ruling entered against the backdrop of unresolved conservatorship, possession, access, and support issues.

That procedural posture controlled both aspects of the appeal. As to the denial of protective relief, the court viewed the order as interlocutory and found no statute authorizing immediate appellate review. The court’s citation to Family Code section 81.009(c) underscored that protective-order appellate rights are delayed when the dispute is bound up with a SAPCR and child-related final orders have not yet been rendered. As to visitation, the court characterized the December 4 ruling as merely modifying prior temporary orders in the pending SAPCR, which under established authority is not independently appealable.

The court had previously issued a show-cause order identifying the apparent jurisdictional defect and inviting a written response. When the appellant failed to respond, nothing in the record displaced the conclusion that the order was nonfinal and nonappealable. Dismissal followed.

Holding

The Fourth Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the attempted appeal from the denial of the protective-order application because the ruling was an interlocutory order entered while related family-law proceedings remained pending. In that setting, the order was not a final judgment, and no statute authorized immediate appeal.

The court separately held that the portion of the December 4, 2025 order modifying visitation was likewise nonappealable because it constituted an interlocutory modification of temporary orders in a pending SAPCR. On that basis as well, appellate jurisdiction was absent.

Practical Application

This case matters less for any new doctrinal development than for its sharp procedural warning. Family lawyers routinely confront emergency orders that feel dispositive in real time: denial of protection, supervised-access changes, geographic restrictions, suspension of possession, or temporary modifications following allegations of family violence. But unless the order is final or specifically made appealable by statute, the court of appeals may have no jurisdiction, even where the practical consequences are immediate and severe.

In active SAPCRs, counsel should assume that orders affecting possession and access are temporary and interlocutory unless the record clearly establishes finality. That is especially true where the trial court is simultaneously handling registration of a foreign custody order, enforcement proceedings, protective-order requests, or modification claims. Filing a notice of appeal from such an order may waste time, increase expense, and distract from the remedies that actually matter in the short term, such as mandamus analysis, emergency trial-court relief, clarification of the docket, severance where available, or moving the underlying case to a final appealable disposition.

The opinion also highlights a recurring structural issue: filing a protective-order application as a “separate action” does not necessarily create an immediately appealable pathway if the dispute remains substantively tied to a pending SAPCR. Practitioners should evaluate whether the requested relief is functionally part of the broader child-related case and whether Family Code section 81.009(c) or finality principles will delay appellate review.

In interstate cases, the same caution applies. When a foreign custody order has been registered and issues of possession or support remain unresolved in Texas, interim rulings entered during that process may not support an immediate appeal. Counsel should frame strategy around preserving error, building a record, and obtaining a prompt merits setting rather than assuming appellate jurisdiction exists.

Checklists

Evaluate Appealability Before Filing the Notice of Appeal

• Confirm whether any SAPCR, modification, enforcement, divorce involving children, or UCCJEA-related proceeding remains pending.
• Determine whether the challenged order disposes of all claims and all parties.
• Review whether the order expressly states it is final, and do not rely on labels alone.
• Check for any statute expressly authorizing interlocutory appeal.
• Analyze whether the order merely modifies temporary orders concerning possession, access, or support.
• Consider whether Family Code section 81.009(c) delays appeal until child-related orders become final.

Protective-Order Jurisdiction Screening in Family Cases

• Identify whether the protective-order request is connected to an existing SAPCR or child-custody dispute.
• Determine whether the respondent is already a party to a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
• Assess whether the requested protective relief would alter possession, access, or related parenting terms.
• Review the docket sheet and clerk’s record for pending registration, modification, or enforcement proceedings.
• Make a written record of why the order is final and appealable if you intend to appeal immediately.
• If appealability is doubtful, evaluate mandamus, expedited trial-court relief, or a request for final disposition instead.

Handling Temporary Visitation Modifications

• Treat interim visitation restrictions or modifications as presumptively interlocutory in a pending SAPCR.
• Identify the prior temporary orders and determine whether the new ruling simply revises them.
• Request clear written findings or a reporter’s record to preserve the basis for the temporary change.
• Consider whether emergency relief should be pursued in the trial court before testing appellate remedies.
• Calendar the path to a final order so appellate review is not delayed by procedural drift.
• Advise the client early that the practical significance of the ruling does not itself make the order appealable.

Build a Record That Clarifies Procedural Posture

• Ensure the clerk’s record accurately reflects all related proceedings.
• Clarify whether any stay affects the SAPCR and what issues remain unresolved.
• Avoid inconsistent representations about pending cases, especially in pro se-adjacent or transferred matters.
• If there is a foreign order registration, specify whether enforcement, modification, or confirmation is still pending.
• Obtain a signed written order before pursuing appellate relief whenever possible.
• If the court of appeals issues a show-cause order, respond promptly and directly on jurisdiction.

Avoid the Non-Prevailing Party’s Procedural Misstep

• Do not assume that a separate cause number creates a final, appealable order.
• Do not appeal from an oral ruling when a written order has not yet been signed unless a rule clearly permits it.
• Do not ignore a jurisdictional show-cause order from the court of appeals.
• Do not frame a temporary family-law order as final without support in the record.
• Do not overlook statutory limits on appeals involving protective orders in SAPCR contexts.
• Do not let an improvident appeal substitute for developing a trial-court strategy toward final judgment.

Citation

A.C. v. S.G.A., No. 04-25-00761-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 15, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~9a8afce5-eb0e-4e9c-bd28-09c0b4a1833e~~