In September 2022, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition for temporary orders requiring Mother and Father to participate in state-provided services for the safety of their child, and the trial court promptly granted them.¹ On August 4, 2023, the Department filed a separate petition to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights and obtain conservatorship.² Mother moved to consolidate the two suits, answered, counter-petitioned for sole managing conservatorship, and moved for sanctions in both suits, asserting that the Department's claims were frivolous and brought in bad faith; Father filed his own answer, counter-petition, and sanctions motion.³ In response, the Department moved to nonsuit all its claims.⁴

At an August 10, 2023 hearing the trial court orally granted consolidation and told the Department that, because the parents had filed sanctions motions, it planned a separate hearing on them.¹ On August 21 it signed the Department's proposed "Order on Motion to Terminate Temporary Order for Required Participation in Services," which terminated the temporary order, relieved the attorney ad litem, and directed the clerk to "remove this cause from the Court's docket and send notice to all parties that this cause is hereby dismissed" (the Dismissal Order), after telling the Department it would still hold the sanctions hearing.² It signed the consolidation order the next day, held the sanctions hearing on September 20, and on September 29 granted the sanctions motions and ordered the Department to pay the parents' fees and costs (the Sanctions Order).³ A divided Fifth Court of Appeals (sitting in Dallas) held that the Dismissal Order was final, that the trial court's plenary power therefore expired before the Sanctions Order, and that the Sanctions Order was void, so it vacated that order and dismissed the Department's appeal.⁴ Father petitioned for review on April 5, 2024, and the Department responded on July 5, 2024; the Court requested merits briefing and decided the case per curiam on March 14, 2025, without oral argument.⁵

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals; decided per curiam without oral argument under Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1.⁶

Father presents one issue: whether the court of appeals erred in finding the August 21 order unambiguous and thus refusing to examine the record to determine whether the trial court intended it to be a final judgment.¹ The Department frames the issues as whether the court of appeals properly held that the dismissal order disposed of all issues and parties, and whether the Sanctions Order, entered thirty-nine days later, was therefore void.²

A judgment issued without a conventional trial is final if it actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, or if it states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties.¹ Under the first method the appellate court reviews the record, and under the second it looks only to the order's words.²

Whether the Dismissal Order was a final judgment.

Petitioner (Father): The August 21 order was intended only to grant the Department's nonsuit of its own case; when it was signed the sanctions motions and counter-petitions were pending, the reporter's record shows the trial court meant to keep jurisdiction, and the court of appeals wrongly called the order unambiguous and refused to consult the record.¹ He adds that Rule of Civil Procedure 162 provides that a nonsuit has no effect on a pending motion for sanctions, and that the Department used the nonsuit to try to avoid sanctions.²

Mother: In her brief on the merits she makes the same points, that the order granted only the Department's nonsuit, that the parents' counter-petitions and sanctions motions remained pending, and that no final judgment was ever signed; the Court noted that she filed no petition for review and so could not be granted relief.³

Respondent (Department): The petition presents nothing for review, because the order dismissing "this cause" and removing it from the docket clearly and unequivocally disposed of the entire case, no magic language is required for finality, and the Sanctions Order came 39 days later, after plenary power expired, and was void.⁴ It also argues that the court of appeals properly refused to use a reporter's record to second-guess the order's language.⁵ The Department relied only on the second finality method, not the first.⁶

Father's petition presents the question whether the court of appeals erred in not examining the record to determine whether the order was intended to be final.¹ The Department responded that the petition presents nothing for review because the court of appeals relied on well-established rules.² The Court described the case as "yet another 'new scenario'" on finality.³

None. The docket shows no amicus filings.

Holding

The Dismissal Order was not a final judgment, because it neither clearly and unequivocally expresses an intent to finally dispose of all claims and parties nor actually disposes of the termination petition or the parents' counter-petitions; the trial court therefore kept its plenary power and the Sanctions Order is not void, though the Department's appeal from it must be dismissed for want of a final judgment.¹

Reasoning

Under the second Lehmann method, the trial court's intent to finally dispose of the case must be unequivocally expressed in the words of the order, and the Court has found finality where several indicia appear together, such as being titled final, disposing of all claims and parties, and being appealable, but not where an order has only one such statement, like a Mother Hubbard clause, a finality label, or enforcement language.² The Dismissal Order has no such "host of indicia": it does not say it is final or appealable or disposes of all claims and parties, has no Mother Hubbard clause or enforcement language, and has no decretal language except relieving the ad litem.³ The Department argued that "this cause" means the entire consolidated case, but the order's title, introductory paragraph, finding, and relief all concern only the request to terminate the temporary order, so its reference to dismissing the "cause" and removing it from the docket does not alone clearly and unequivocally express an intent to render a final judgment.⁴ Under the first method, the order is not final either, because the record shows it does not address the termination petition or either parent's counter-petition, which the Department does not dispute.⁵

Disposition

Without hearing oral argument, the Court granted the petition for review, reversed the court of appeals' judgment vacating the Sanctions Order, dismissed the appeal, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.⁶

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Boyd, Busby, Devine, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.