                                      In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-14-00172-CV
                           ____________________


                        IN THE INTEREST OF C.K.M.

_______________________________________________________            ______________

                    On Appeal from the 279th District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. C-215,826-A
________________________________________________________             _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On April 9, 2014, Appellants filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s

“Order Granting Motion to Strike and Dismissing [Appellants’] Pleadings for

Termination and Conservatorship Due to Lack of Standing” signed and entered by

the trial court on March 21, 2014. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court’s Order was not a final judgment

because it did not dispose of all of the live claims before the trial court. In their

response, Appellants contend the record is ambiguous and that they “were unable



                                         1
to determine if the Court’s Order of March 21, 2014 constituted a final, appealable

order or not.”

       “[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or

judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every

pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally

disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,

205 (Tex. 2001). According to the record now before us, the trial court did not sign

the Order after a conventional trial on the merits and the record lacks any clear

indication that the trial court intended the order to completely dispose of the entire

case.1 See id. We conclude that the March 21, 2014 Order is an interlocutory order.

Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.


                                              ________________________________
                                                      HOLLIS HORTON
                                                           Justice

Submitted on September 3, 2014
Opinion Delivered September 4, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
      1
        We note that the order does not address grandparent access, and it lacks
clear and unequivocal language of finality.
                                          2
