Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
from the 369th District Court of Anderson County, Texas
(Tr.Ct. No. DCCV17-070-369)
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
T. Worthen Chief Justice
Dean Laymance, pro se, appeals the trial court's order in
a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. On appeal, he
presents seven issues. We affirm.
Laymance and Morgan Mosley are the parents of J.D.L. On
February 14, 2017, John Van Compernolle and Sharon Van
Compernolle, maternal great-grandparents of J.D.L., filed a
first amended original petition in suit affecting the
parent-child relationship, alleging that the parents have
engaged in a history or pattern of child neglect and drug
abuse. John and Sharon requested that they be appointed sole
managing conservators of the child and requested that the
trial court issue a temporary restraining order against the
parents. On February 15, 2017, the trial court issued a
temporary restraining order, and an order setting a hearing
on the temporary orders. Twelve days later, the trial court
ordered that the temporary restraining order be extended, and
extended the date of the hearing on the temporary orders. On
March 3, 2017, the trial court held a hearing on John and
Sharon's application for temporary orders. The trial
court found that Jeremy "although duly and properly
notified, did not appear and wholly made default." The
trial court ordered that John and Sharon be appointed
temporary sole managing conservators, and that Jeremy be
appointed temporary possessory conservator of the child.
However, the trial court found that credible evidence was
presented that Jeremy and Morgan had a history or pattern of
family violence, abuse, and/or neglect. The trial court
ordered that Jeremy and Morgan have no possession of, or
contact with, the child until further order of the court. The
trial court also issued a temporary injunction against Jeremy
to Jeremy's brief, he and Morgan were served a copy of
John and Sharon's petition on March 15, 2017 while in the
White County Detention Center in the State of Arkansas. The
record shows that Jeremy and Morgan were arrested and charged
with interference with child custody on March 3, 2017. Jeremy
and Morgan filed an answer to John and Sharon's petition
on March 21, 2017, requesting that they be appointed sole
managing conservators of the child.
filed several pleadings in June 2017, including a motion to
set the petition for hearing, a motion to amend pleadings,
interrogatories, a request for production, and a motion for
joinder of parties. On June 29, 2017, the trial court entered
the final order in suit affecting the parent-child
relationship. The trial court found that Jeremy and Morgan
made a general appearance and were duly notified of trial,
but failed to appear and defaulted. The trial court appointed
John and Sharon as sole managing conservators, and Jeremy and
Morgan as possessory conservators of the child. The trial
court also granted Jeremy and Morgan visitation under John
and Sharon's supervision on the days and times prescribed
by them, and ordered Jeremy and Morgan to pay child support.
the final order was signed, Jeremy filed several motions
including two motions to compel discovery and a motion for
summary judgment. Jeremy filed a timely notice of appeal.
third and fourth issues, Jeremy argues the trial court erred
by issuing a temporary restraining order without notice,
extending the temporary restraining order without notice, and
issuing temporary orders, including a temporary injunction,
without notice or personal service. It is well-settled that a
temporary order is superseded by entry of a final order,
rendering moot any complaint about the temporary order.
See In re A.K., 487 S.W.3d 679, 683 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio 2016, no pet.); Erlewine v. Erlewine, No.
03-06-00308-CV, 2007 WL 2462042, at *2 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug.
29, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding temporary order
modifying child support was no longer in effect when
superseded by final judgment and complaint about modification
was moot); see also Wright v. Wentzel, 749 S.W.2d
228, 234 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ). In
other words, after the trial court enters its final order,
any complaints about temporary orders become moot.
Mauldin v. Clements, 428 S.W.3d 247, 262 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.).
the record shows that the trial court issued a temporary
restraining order on February 15, 2017, extended the
temporary restraining order, and issued temporary orders,
including a temporary injunction, on March 3, 2017. However,
the trial court entered the final order in suit affecting the
parent-child relationship on June 29, 2017. That order
appointed John and Sharon as sole managing conservators, and
Jeremy and Morgan as possessory conservators of the child.
Because the trial court rendered a final order in the suit
affecting the parent-child relationship, Jeremy's
complaints about the temporary orders are moot and not
subject to review on appeal. See In re A.K., 487
S.W.3d at 683; see also Wright, 749 S.W.2d at 234;
L.F. v. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.,
Nos. 01-10-01148-CV, 01-10-01149-CV, 2012 WL 1564547, at *14
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 3, 2012, pet. denied)
(mem. op.) (declining to consider temporary orders
authorizing emergency removal after final order of
termination entered). We overrule Jeremy's third and
sixth issue, Jeremy contends that the final order affecting
the parent-child relationship was null and void because he
did not receive proper service of citation and the
officer's return was not filed with the clerk. However,
Jeremy admitted in his brief that he was served with citation
on March 15, 2017 while in the White County Detention Center
in the State of Arkansas. He also stated that he received a
copy of John and Sharon's petition. Moreover, he filed an
answer to John and Sharon's petition on March 21, 2017.
Jeremy's answer constituted a general appearance in the
underlying suit which renders his argument of defective
service of process moot. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 121
("[a]n answer shall constitute an appearance of the
defendant so as to dispense with the ...